MangoKorat

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless I am mistaken I said no such thing. I do think the west encouraged Zelensky to bait the bear in hopes of punishing Putin without getting themselves involved- better for Ukrainians to die than Americans and all that.

I also think they underestimated Russia ( just like Napoleon and Hitler ), and have found themselves stuck in a war they can't afford, but can't let go of.

I just got that overall feeling based on your post.  As for letting go...........the Ukraine is in dire trouble right now and it is at serious risk of losing the war. That is entirely because its Western 'partners', especially the USA have let it down on supplies of weapons and equipment.  If we let that happen, all the supplies already sent and the lives lost, will have been in vain.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You do realise that "standing up" to them ( short of nuclear annihilation ) involves a lot of western boys coming home in bags, unless you know of a very large mercenary force that could be used instead, don't you?

Do you see an alternative? One that works over the long term?

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

Think you and the other guy are in the wrong topic

The situation in the Middle East, Africa and Ukraine are all potential contributors towards triggering WW3.  Putin is heavily involved with and an ally of Iran.

13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO we are a somewhat intelligent species ( a really intelligent species wouldn't destroy it's own environment ) led by morons idiots.

Agreed but.......money No.1

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO it is obvious that he does not want all of Ukraine, as he could never control that much territory. What he wants is what he has already, plus a Ukraine without NATO between Russia and NATO border. From what I read on here, that was the agreement some years ago, but that was forgotten when noises were made by IMO idiots that Ukraine should join NATO. America risked nuclear war to stop Russia putting missiles into Cuba, and now it seems America wants to put missiles into Ukraine. What could possibly go wrong with that IMO barking idea?

I wouldn't be in favour of the US placing missiles in Ukraine but I doubt anyone knows what goes on in Putin's head.  He was never under any sort of threat - only threats that he perceived. He is on record as having stated that  he wants to put the old Soviet Union back together - the territory not the ideology.  As for agreements, don't forget that he took Crimea!  Overall and despite all previous agreements, Ukraine is a sovereign state and has every right to form alliances, pacts and economic agreements as it so wishes. The fact that Putin objects to such things merely illustrates his own personal insecurity.

NATO is a defensive organisation that has never been involved in any initial aggression. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO prior to 2014, Ukraine would almost certainly not be at war with Russia today. As a result of Putin's war on Ukraine, he now has an even bigger border with NATO as Finland is now a member.

Whereas Putin sees NATO as a threat, he in fact is the only party that has carried out aggressive actions - Georgia and Ukraine, direct threats towards Latvia and veiled threats towards other Baltic states. Putin's airforce have carried out documented horrific attacks on civillians in Syria.

There are now reports that Putin has warned Biden against getting involved in Iran, saying he will not sit back and do nothing - despite prior statements from both the US and the UK that they will not assist Israel in any action against Iran.

Unless I misunderstand, you appear to be promoting Putin as a non-aggressor who is simply trying to protect his country.  I'd suggest that his actions prove that he is anything but that and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of both his own and Ukrainian forces and civillians. This is the man who through his Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated that he had no intention of invading Ukraine - just hours before he did just that.

The man is a war monger with designs on creating an empire.  He achieves support at home by controlling the Russian media, manufacturing news and promoting a school of thought that the West is out to get Russia. He is a thug who quite clearly was involved in massive corruption as the former Soviet Union broke up. His election success is highly questionable, given that any real opposition in Russia is effectively banned.  A truly popular man, who was not afraid of his nation knowing what actually goes on, would not need to do that.

Quite how Russia can rebuke Israel at the UN for its attack on Iran when it invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea beggars belief.

Although I don't want to see WW3, I think the time has come for the world to stand up to Putin, Khomeini and all other despotic, aggressive regimes. We will regret it otherwise and it is just possible that such action may actually avert a World War. 

10 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

And just how will anyone be punished if found guilty? 

Radovan Karadžić (Serbian Cyrillic: Радован Караџић, pronounced [râdoʋaːn kâradʒitɕ]; born 19 June 1945) is a Bosnian Serb politician who was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).^[2] He was the president of Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War.

40 years in prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Karadžić

6 hours ago, NedR69 said:

Gearstick??  Do you mean like the shifter?  WTH, why did it need replacing?

Shifter?  Maybe that's the American term. Its a known fault where the button that has to be pressed to move it out of Park or into Reverse breaks making it very difficult to move between gears.

Aftermarket repair kits are available very cheaply but I decided on a genuine part. The repair kit isn't available as OEM - only a complete gearstick.

They always made me laugh.

Firstly people scrambling for a pen in the immigration queue. Then the baffled faces of people who didn't know the address of their hotel.

People who couldn't read English.

'Address in Thailand' - lots of tourists stay one night in Bangkok before moving on - so what was required? There was barely enough space to write your first address in, never mind any ongoing stays.  Neither was there any check that you were actually staying at the address you entered - so what use was the TM6 in any case?

Then there were the queues at Immigration when you left because some people has lost their TM6.

Complete waste of time and trees.

On 3/27/2024 at 1:57 AM, Peterw42 said:

There is no need for airbnb to operate in Thailand.

Except for those who wish to rent an entire property. 

My daughter and her family regularly rent a house with a pool on Samui. They gain privacy yet the ability for the whole family to be together in the evenings, they love it - I don't see anything wrong with that. Some people prefer that sort of accommodation for their holidays. I'm pretty sure my daughter wouldn't visit Thailand if she couldn't rent a house, there are plenty of other destinations where such accommodation is available.

I've seen people mention the downsides of AirBnB rentals - noise etc. and I wouldn't want that. Surely that's better dealt with by requiring the landlord to take responsibility for his tenants?

On 3/27/2024 at 1:57 AM, Peterw42 said:

There is no need for airbnb to operate in Thailand.

Except for those who wish to rent an entire property. 

My daughter and her family regularly rent a house with a pool on Samui. They gain privacy yet the ability for the whole family to be together in the evenings, they love it - I don't see anything wrong with that. Some people prefer that sort of accommodation for their holidays. I'm pretty sure my daughter wouldn't visit Thailand if she couldn't rent a house, there are plenty of other destinations where such accommodation is available.

I've seen people mention the downsides of AirBnB rentals - noise etc. and I wouldn't want that. Surely that's better dealt with by requiring the landlord to take responsibility for his tenants?

Note that in addition to the usual requirements for an extension, his wife will have to be with him if he wants 60 days. If not he will only get 30 days.

51 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

Granted, but again - we should all just follow the law rather than break it.

I agree which is why I criticise Israel regarding their actions in Gaza so much.  I find it amazing when any state, carries out actions that it would prosecute its citizens for.  In the case of Israel's attack on the Iranian Consulate, I'm not too worried about the fact that it was a consulate - for the reasons I've already given. What I am concerned about is that what occurred there was summary execution and it took place outside the theatre of war.

Israel also recently blew up a car containing 3 sons of a Hamas leader.  Now, those sons were almost certainly Hamas members but what about the 4 grandchildren that were also killed in the attack?  Collateral damage again? Or are we now killing children on the basis that they might become terrorists in the future?

Israel's intelligence network must be second to none. They knew exactly when the IRGC members were inside the Damascus consulate and they pinpointed the 3 Hamas leader's sons down to a car.  It seems unbelievable then that they didn't know there were also 4 children in that car.

As a citizen, I wouldn't be allowed to kill someone who I believe killed one of my family but as soon as its war, anything goes for the state.

Its a fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation that has carried out some horredous crimes for which they should be punished but I find it pretty bad when Israel calls out Hamas whilst committing crimes itself. To set yourself up in an ivory tower, you have to behave accordingly.

I am hopeful that when this mess is finished, war crimes committed by both sides will be properly investigated and punished.

Just so I don't get accused of anti semitisim again (not by yourself) - I am refering to Israel as a state, to its military and its methods. Nothing at all to do with its religion. Maybe I should include this disclaimer in all posts where I criticise Israel?

16 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said:

 

I don't believe you. It must be a joke to call the IDF a 'credible source'. I agree, a source, but obviously completely and absolutely biased and nothing they say can be trusted.

 

 

 

 

I was joking but I can't be bothered to argue with you.

Just now, AreYouGerman said:

 

From the IDF? Is this a joke?

No

3 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

Israel didn't just violate Iran's consulate, it also violated Syria's airspace and could have endangered its citizens.

It did indeed but the credibility/legality of the Syrian state is questionable, is it not?  I don't mean to make light of it but there are very few countries that have any respect for the Syrian regime and therefore the current state.

On 4/12/2024 at 7:49 AM, Kenny202 said:

No point bickering about any of this stuff about rules or what is written for any Thai bank, government office, immigration etc. What is written and what actually happens / their knowledge of their own rules at your particular branch are usually 2 different things. Little fiefdoms. These places just don't seem to have any single information center....usually comes down to what the staff are telling you correct or not. Strange because Thailand seems to be the HUB of everything else? Apparently these head offices have no information HUB.

 

No point saying people are lying or starting these long drawn out smarty pants competitions as everyone has different experiences. Often ruins the many good informative replies that get lost in the noise

Agreed, its not as if we are not used to different things being told by different branches of the same organisation is it? Look at the differences in requirements that people experience when applying for extensions of stay?

Look at the Amphurs that say they can't conduct a foreign/Thai marriage.  The banks that say you can't open an account without a work permit etc. etc.......................................... nothing new really is there?

40 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Who fired the Missile that that flattened the Iranian conslate in Damascus? ISRAEL so Israel started this latest fighting Iran had every right to respond not the other way round. So if and its a big If its Israel who started it 1st.

That argument doesn't hold much water. There is credible evidence that one of the architects of the 7th of October attack was in that consulate so from that point of view its very much 'chicken and egg'. 

My argument would be on the sanctity of an embassy or consulate but then again, if an embassy or consulate is simply being used as cover for a military headquarters, does it retain that sanctity?

Interestingly, when circumstances demanded it, the UK government allowed the storming of the Iranian Embassy in London in 1980.  Obviously completely different cicumstances as in that case, it was the legal occupants of the embassy that were in need of help but it did demonstrate that when necessary, an embassy or consulate's sanctity can be breached.

A very convoluted matter but I have to say that if I knew where someone who killed my family was, I wouldn't think twice about attacking them, wherever they were.

19 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I guess, you will issue the perfunctory statement that you are in no way antisemitic.

I'd be interested to learn which part of any of my posts is anti semetic?

16 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

You continue to trivialise Iran attacking Israel because of the percentage of their arsenal that they used; even now claiming to know which missiles they used, and the age of them; next, I guess, you will issue the perfunctory statement that you are in no way antisemitic.

 

Yes, because I'm not anti semetic in any way! So, 'perfunctory' or not I will state that I am not anti semetic.  In fact if I was forced to take sides in this matter I would reluctantly fall on Israel's side - I have no love for a regime that represses its people, imprisons them for dissent and forces women into an unwanted dress code.

So, I'd suggest that you read all of my posts and stop your selective reading because in this case you've got egg on your face.

I respect the rights of all to hold their beliefs. I just wish they wouldn't fight wars over them or let them run their daily lives. Israel is guilty of war crimes in Gaza just as Hamas are. Its a sad situation that requires an almost impossible amount of compromise to settle.

You have completely got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I have not sought to trivialise anything, I am simply pointing out what most of the experts on the region are saying - and I believe they are right.  That is that Iran simply wanted to send a message without starting a war that they can't win.  They calculated what they thought they could do and the ball is now in Israel's court.  However, as the attack was ineffective, Israel's allies are pressing them not to react.

Had they wished to start a war, Iran's attack would have been much bigger and sustained. As it is, Iran has stated that their actions are at an end - they sent their message.

If you had missiles of varying ages in your arsenal - would you use the newest ones that were due to be destroyed soon in any case?

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Once again you try to trivialise Iran attacking Israel with what is now reported as approximately 350 cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles, simply because that number is a small percentage of their arsenal; and remember, this attack was in response to a single Israeli strike on a building that was not even on Iranian soil.

 

 

I am not trying to trivialise anything. Iran wanted to send a message, they didn't want to start a war.  In stating that their actions are at an end, Iran more or less said the same. They said they would punish Israel and in their eyes, they have.

Israel's defensive capabilities are well known so my guess is that they knew that their attack would be ineffective but you can bet your bottom dollar that the media in Iran will be stating a completely different story.

Most of the military experts on the region have the same opinion.

17 minutes ago, Seppius said:

Are those countries going to attack Iran with Israel as well in retaliation?

No.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Because they're a civilized country that stands against terrorism perhaps. 

Agreed but the poster should also note that the UK's actions have been defensive. I don't see anything wrong with stopping a missile from killing people.

Both the US and the UK have stated that they will not take part in any action against Iran.

3 minutes ago, transam said:

 

No, it wasn't mainly drones...........🤔

170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles and you can bet it used its oldest stock which was coming towards the end of its useable life. Iran is said to have 3000 ballistic missiles so it fired 4% of them.

29 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

You seem to be indicating that attacking Israel with 300+ cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles is acceptable, based on the premise that it is only a small percentage of their (Iranian) stocks.

 

You would therefore, I assume, find it acceptable if Israel retaliated with a similar percentage of their own weapons stocks …. or do you think it should be different rules of engagement for Israel.

 

 

I don't think anything is acceptable - by either side.  I'm simply commenting on what has happened and that it was not a particularly large attack in terms of how many missiles and drones Iran actually has.

I think I made it clear that I am not an Israel supporter, neither do support the medieval lunatics in Iran.