Hawaiian

9 hours ago, placnx said:

Looking back to the Shah's reign, middle class people were not happy with SAVAK, the secret police, and many thought that Ayatollah Khomeini would be better. Iran had a parliament for a long time, but now the ultimate power resides with the religious elite. I agree that the country can culturally support a democracy, but imposition by external force is problematic. There too much chance for opportunists to come in on the back of occupation.

Although there is some room for argument, most Iranians were considered to be middle class before the Revolution. Prices were fairly stable. Today the majority of the population are poor and inflation is a serious problem for them.

One reason the U.S. supported the Shah and his repressive policies was the fear of communism.  Similar to the backing of Marcos until the Filipinos had enough of his brutal tactics.

The toppling of the mullahs caused by foreign intervention and/or military action wouldn't necessarily be followed by a ground invasion and occupying forces.  A spontaneous peoples rebellion could happen with anti-government forces taking over and eventually calling for free and open elections.  I would venture to say a more secular oriented government would be the result.

Wishful thinking?  Maybe, maybe not.

19 minutes ago, treetops said:

 

OP appears to be talking about native English speakers.  Everyone you refer to doesn't appear to fall into that category.

Sorry, I missed that point.  The people I mentioned evidently were schooled by American native-speaker instructors.  I know my girl's niece was.

5 minutes ago, Polar Bear said:

Euro English is a separate dialect (or set of dialects, depending on how you want to break it down) to standard English. As it's primarily used as a lingua franca, it is typically spoken more slowly, the vocabulary and grammar are slightly simplified, and it's more concrete because idioms rarely translate well. Naturally, the parts that have been dropped in Euro English are the parts that learners find most difficult. If that's what you have primarily been exposed to, of course you will find British/American/Whatever English more difficult to understand, especially if the speaker has an accent or uses a local dialect. The solution is to practice listening to a wider variety of dialects.

Americans often struggle more with British accents compared to Brits who generally have fewer problems with American accents. That's partly down to there being a wider range of strong accents in the UK, but it's mostly because we are exposed to a lot more American English through TV and movies. When British accents do make it in American media they are usually received pronunciation and bear little resemblance to how most people actually talk. Brits flounder just as much when faced with a strong unfamiliar American accent. (And I once had a very confusing conversation with a Glaswegian Rasta. My Scottish friend had to translate because despite us both supposedly speaking English we didn't appear to have any language in common at all.)

Find movies where actors have local accents or watch/listen to local news from around the world. If you are serious about it, there are plenty of materials online for English learners who need to understand a broader range of dialects.

Funny that you mention that.  I have a friend from the UK that jokes around with me as to what English accent he was going to use for the day.  I though he was pretty good in his imitations.

9 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Are you referring to all English speakers, or just British? Some Brits have very strong accents. Most say Americans are fairly easy to understand. The accent, if they have one, is fairly flat.

I tend to agree with you.  Americans also have various regional dialects which can also make a difference.  People in Thailand have commented that my English is easy to understand.   I can converse in the local Hawaiian pidgin English, but have chosen not to.  So truthfully, I don't if I speak in any discernible dialect.

20 hours ago, roquefort said:

Settled.....as in how the issue with the Taliban was settled? Handing the country back to them after 20 years, trillions of $ and thousands of US lives lost. Ditto Iraq. The US cannot 'win' these regional wars, they just create another generation of terrorists that grow up hating the US.

Do you consider the Viet Nam Conflict a regional war?  The U.S. along with South Korean forces failed to stop Ho Chi Minh's communist forces from overrunning the south.  When was the last Vietnamese terrorist attack on the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

Today, American companies are very active in the country and Viet Nam has been cooperating with the U.S. in opposing Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.

You win some, you lose some.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

 

Well sometimes the results of the war are easy to read, and sometimes the results of a war take decades to understand. Iraq and Afghanistan are both great examples of that. Trillions of dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and what was the net gain?

 

Where is Iraq now? And Afghanistan? The same thing applies to Iran. Let's just say we got rid of the Ayatollah and the extremists within the government, where would Iran be then? Would it become a magic democracy overnight, or would there be decades of blowback? 

If the mullahs were overthrown there is a good possibility of democratic reforms coming back, maybe not overnight like you say, but quicker than many think possible.  Iran has a sizable population of well educated people that are not religious fanatics, especially the younger generation.

Lately there have been frequent  anti-government demonstrations demanding reforms and women's rights.  The pro-government demonstrations you see are government sponsored and instigated.

If really fair and free elections were held tomorrow, a pro-democracy government would most likely be voted in.

1 hour ago, Presnock said:

Same thoughts about the Afghani'... In Iran 1989- same thing...the Shah wasn't his oldself, at that time women had total freedom, were going to college free, free medical etc...they traded that so that those priests in exile (France) could come back and make women be slaves again!  got what they deserve for sure but now the rest of the world will be having bigger problems with the Iranians...just wait, like "little rocket man" once he got nukes...Chinese lost any control they had over him.

 

The last time a military general tried to disobey the politicos, (MacArthur) check out what happened to that WWII hero.  Austin can only bow down to the President and the Congress.

I know how it is supposed to work.  Only Congress can declare war and the president is the one to wage war.  Right now Congress is almost dysfunctional with the House passing a bill and the Senate shooting it down and visa versa.  The President says one thing and his aides turn around and say just the opposite. 

As far as defense issues go, it seems most of the statements are coming from Austin or his spokespeople.  This is why I have inferred he is calling the shots even though he officially lacks the authority to do so.  This ambiguity is sending a signal to our enemies that the right hand may not know what the right hand is doing. They are testing the waters to see how far they can go before the we act.

8 minutes ago, novacova said:

The cowardly inaction of the US president is paving the way for a regional conflict by hoping Iran will be nice has only emboldened them, unintentionally or by deliberate intent to incite a war. Either way it’s stupid. The issue with the Houthis should have been settled by now as well as the attacks on the US bases in Iraq and Syria. Instead the US is flinching and hesitating, deadly mistakes.

I think it is Lloyd Austin who is calling the shots, is waiting for more American blood to be spilled.  So far no deaths reported, so no real push back.  Waiting for outrage from the American public when lives are lost to actually retaliate is the coward's way out.  The Houthis in Yemen and the insurgents in Iraq are not one bit deterred by warning shots.

On 11/28/2023 at 5:59 PM, WDSmart said:

Here is Wikipedia's definition of Zionism:

"The common denominator among all Zionists has been a claim to Palestine, a land traditionally known in Jewish writings as the Land of Israel ("Eretz Israel") as a national homeland of the Jews and as the legitimate focus for Jewish national self-determination. It is based on historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel."

It's probably true that not all Zionists want to expel or isolate all non-Jews or want to accomplish the goals above by force, but I associate the most extreme motives of Zionism with the group I call "Zionists." 

Hamas is defined as "...a Palestinian Islamic movement founded in 1987 with the aim of establishing a Palestinian state incorporating present-day Israel and the West Bank." And it is just as probably true that not all those who support Hamas want that done by force, but again, I (and probably you and most everyone else who reads the news) associate the most extreme motives of Hamas with that group as a whole.

That's why I posted what I did way above that began this thread. I basically said, "BOTH Hamas and Zionists should be eliminated." And, by that, I mean I do associate the most extreme motives with both groups. 

Wikipedia also describes the Hamas Charter or Covenant and its revisions which you failed to furnish.  Most of is just a bunch of convoluted nonsense promoting the sovereignty of Islam.

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I prefer having a British monarch as head of NZ state, as it means we don't need to waste money to elect yet another useless politician. I just wish it was William instead of Charles.

Here in Hawaii the sovereignty activists want to restore the monarchy.  The last heir to the crown recently past away.  There are so many different activist groups with opposing agendas they would never come to an agreement to select the next king or queen.  Good!

On 11/28/2023 at 6:05 AM, Paris333 said:

The English language is in the Latin alphabet and it is logical that Thais find it difficult to learn it like all Westerners.Do you know Thai? Do you know Chinese? Do you know Vietnamese? Do you know Cambodian? No! Why? Because it's in another alphabet of non-Latin origin. Russians as well as Arab "businessmen" (ha-ha-xha)have settled in Thailand .....

My Thai girlfriend paid for her niece's English School after she graduated from business school.  Her English is pretty close to perfect along with her business skills.  She has her own online business doing consulting and making purchases for clients.  She is the ideal student when I share my knowledge of Japanese cooking.  Very innovative and a quick learner. 

 Donald Trump was not a politician until he got elected.  He was scum before he got elected.  Just saying.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd expect nothing less from politicians, as hypocrisy is what they are good at ( along with lying ), but charles has been a big disappointment for me since insisting on not abdicating in favour of his son. I thought he was a better person than that. Call me sadly disillusioned.

England, like many other countries would be better of without their monarchies. They are relics of the past.

25 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

I misunderstood your post, my apologies, in my haste I thought you were referring to Thailand's economy whereas now that I have re-read it, you were referring to Hawaii's.

Not trying  to start an argument.  I was disagreeing with you about the importance tourism is to Thailand's economy.  Any sector or sub-sector contributing 10% to a nation's GDP should be taken seriously.

My reference to Hawaii is that the people in this state are making a big mistake by bashing the visitor industry.  I believe Thailand would be also making a big mistake by dismissing tourism as a valuable business sector.  Again, 10% (you mention 12%) is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to GDP.

You may be interested in the info this link provides.  I learned a lot from it.   

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sector.asp

5 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

I disagree, customs exports or the export of goods represent over 55 per cent of Thai GDP, that's the first string to their economic bow, international tourism at 12 per cent is a distant second.

Disagree all you want.  Twelve percent is twelve percent.  Ask any reputable economist and they will tell you that in situation the world is in, every penny, in Thailand's case, every baht counts.

The Chinese would say, even in "normal" times this applies.

29 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

Meanwhile, back in the real Thailand!

Yup, some people never appreciate something until they lose it.  In the real Hawaii we have those bashing tourism and blaming the visitor industry for everything from the lack of affordable housing to the trash and litter along the highways which is mostly generated by locals.

There are comments every day about diversifying the economy with no real feasible suggestions as to how to accomplish it.  Besides the visitor industry and the military, there are really no viable solutions.  Sugar and pineapple are gone, macadamia nuts are losing out to foreign competition like Kenya.  Coffee production is okay, but constantly being attacked by invasive diseases and pests.  Many of our prime agricultural lands are being sold to solar farm developers.  In recent years NIMBYs have stopped a plywood veneer mill from being built.  It would have processed hundreds of acres of mature tropical hardwood trees planted for that purpose.

A water bottling plant was shot down because it was claimed it would deplete an underground spring pumping millions of gallons of fresh water every day into the ocean.  This is after respected hydrologists said proposed well would have a minimal effect.  And the list goes on and on.  So Thailand needs to wake up and stop trying to kill the golden geese.

17 hours ago, connda said:

I agree with a lot of what you say.  I might counter you on the issue of "quality of tourists."  From an economic stand-point, revenues can be derived from a wide mix of tourist from varying economic strata.  Everyone fills a niche from the Cheapest Charlie swilling beer in front of a 7/11 to the George Soros types living, dining, and working well out of sight of the commoners and 'little people.'  Exploiting economic niches requires understanding your customer-base and modifying prices to maximize revenues.  Economics 101.  So Thailand can cater to the "Well-Heeled Wealthy Foreigners Of Means" but that approach isn't going to stimulate the entire economy.  In fact it will only stimulate a relatively small section of the economy which is already rich and wealthy to obscene levels. 
A truly effective strategy to maximize revenues generated by tourism will be to identify and cater to each economic niche and do so by manipulating the cost of goods and services to match means of all tourists visiting Thailand.

What Thailand needs are individuals who are actually well-versed in marketing (and propaganda for that matter) and then appeal to each of those groups using different strategies.  The problem for Thailand though is that it doesn't seem to have anyone who understands marketing and economics, and who is in a position to implement those strategies nationwide.  The problem being, Thai like that don't exist.

Thailand needs to seriously become less nationalistic, open up the country by easing visa requirements, and really welcome foreign businesses as well as those expats injecting a million or so into the Thai economy every year - like many expat retirees and guys like myself who have been married to a Thai national for the upside of two decades.
This country should welcome guys like me who could open a small business and hire Thais if the bar for entrance into creating a small business wasn't set so high.  Hell, a Thai with a green card in the US can open any business they wish.  They can hire an all Thai staff if they wish.  The same should apply here.  What Thailand needs to allow economic growth that is created by foreigners seeking to leverage economic niches within Thailand that in turn focus on foreign tourists in a manner that nationalistic Thais with poor English-skills as well as marginal business skills. 

But?  It ain't going to change.  And tourism will continue it's downhill spiral.  Look at COP28 in the UAE.  A bevy of billionaire and their government apparatchiks flying their CO2 spewing private jets in order to get together and pave the way for laws to keep the rest of the planet's population from flying or driving.  Neo-Feudalism in the name of "Boiling Oceans" and other BS tropes.  Now, there's a boon for the future of tourism don't ya think? 

Believe it or not, there are some individuals here that would meet your qualifications for good marketing skills and economics.  Some have studied and worked overseas in executive positions in the visitor industry.  They are smart enough not to get in involved in the dirty dealings of Thai politics, because they would get laughed at and humiliated.

14 hours ago, JensenZ said:

It's not all doom and gloom. I stayed at the 5-star Gems Mining Pool Villa in Pattaya 2 weeks ago, for 2 nights. They were doing very well, even with room rates over 7,000 baht per night for their cheapest rooms. Our room was over 10,000 per night. The breakfast room was quite busy.

If we wanted to pay over 10,000 baht a night we would be visiting Japan, a country where I speak the language and have been all over from Hokkaido to Kyushu.  Japan, today, has become a bit pricey even with the yen at 150 to the dollar.

As far as Thailand goes we prefer the countryside and bungalow style accommodations.  We visit Thailand once or twice a year, staying a month at time.  Can't see paying so much for a room that we would spend so little time in because we are out and about with friends.  The place we stayed at in Petchaburi is located on a 60 rai property, in the middle of nowhere.  We are quite content to look after ourselves and don't need a lot of fancy amenities.  Advertised rates were around 1,800 baht with a 33% discount.   The peace and quiet was very enjoyable.

As one poster mentioned, people with money always have the funds to travel and their spending habits are not greatly affected by a bad economy.  The bulk of travelers. fall somewhere in the middle.