JAG

1 hour ago, Cadbury said:

General Apirat is a staunch royalist as is Prayut Chan-o-cha. This story from the Strait Times might give you a different slant on things. Particularly the bit about about "Bangkok's media portrays Gen Apirat as a "trusted lieutenant" of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha"

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/new-thai-army-chief-takes-command

There are two distinct factions within the officer corps. Both groups are akin to masonic lodges. Both groups have wildly imaginative nicknames, which suggest extraordinary military prowess! These factions owe their allegiances to two very different, very powerful men. There is considerable bad blood between these two. The current Junta is drawn from one faction, who have been in the ascendence for some time. This fellow is from the other faction, whose star might be said to be rising. Despite their bitter, perhaps deadly, rivalry, these two factions have one thing in common; they have no time for democracy, and no interest in what the people want. 

This election, is merely the precursor to a struggle to govern between these two factions.

3 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Ah, in England we just call them bullies, rats or weasels. 

Looking at the remarkable assortment of badges, picture pins and assorted military bling stuck on his combat jacket I would call him a "Walt" (Walter Mitty), possibly the "Walt of the Walts"...

12 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

do people like this really go about dressed like that?.

Only on formal occasions! 

4 hours ago, Burma Bill said:

After the election, he may be "booted" out of his camp!

I think it is more likely that after the election assorted politicians will find themselves in his camp, listening to various ultra-nationalist songs for a sustained period. I believe it is known as attitude adjustment.

2 hours ago, seajae said:

everyone knows the polls in Thailand are never correct or even close in most cases but its funny seeing the ptp/thaksin supporters spitting their dummies with the poll prediction. The results will be the only measure, polls mean bugger all, cant see why people are getting so upset.....????

I'm encouraged to hear that the results of the election will bear any relationship to how the electorate actually voted!

25 minutes ago, Bullie said:

There will be a real border between Spain and the Rock. Import duties, taxes will be applied. The Rock will die economically. Pure and simple.

I was there in the mid-1980s, The border was actually closed much of the time, and when it was open crossing could be difficult. The Rock seemed to do all right economically notwithstanding that.

1 hour ago, tabarin said:

Who cares? Global warming will take care of all those coast places, little islands and eventually UK anyway right? 555

It will have to get jolly hot to swamp the Rock of Gibraltar! Mind you, the first thing that will happen will be that the isthmus linking The Rock to the mainland will be flooded, turning it into an Island. All those Spanish Civil Guard chaps who so enjoyed hassling travelers to and from the rock (and have continued their antics from time to time whilst Spain and the UK were both members of the EU) will have to learn to swim, their extraordinary little shiny varnished hats will get all soggy, and the cigarettes which without exception were carried in the (usually unbuttoned) shirt pockets will get wet!

????????

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...The survey also indicates that the next government will be a coalition government, with the Palang Prachart and Democrat parties forming the core of a new government, with the possible participation of Bhumjai Thai, Ruam Palang Prachachart, Chart Thai Pattana and Chart Pattana parties which altogether will command more than 300 votes in the House of Representatives..."

 

Really? You know how the post-election period is going to occur? 

Well it is entirely possible that he knows both the numbers of the result, and the parliamentary arrangement which will emerge from those numbers to form the government. After all, they were probably drafted months ago, and he may be well enough connected to have seen, or been briefed on them...

11 hours ago, poohy said:

Sounds like nasty piece of work, and running a even nastier bunch !

Its going to end in tears!

My money is on him as the catalyst which kicks it off.

14 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Thais fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars

This bloke is not old enough for either.

His medals are for being first in the NAAFI queue!

15 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

What happens when Spain remains a member of the EU and the UK leaves?

 

Expect more of this...

 

 

 

Well Gibraltar has been a British Territory since 1713 when it was ceded in perpetuity by the Treaty of Utrecht. Spain joined the EU in 1986. I suppose things will carry on in much the same way as they did In those 273 years. The Spanish military making such comic opera "threatening" moves is not exactly new, both during those 273 years and during British and Spanish membership of the EU.

10 hours ago, jerojero said:

15 hours ago, smedly said:

The EU military will invade the UK - Including Germany Italy France Hungry Bulgaria and Spain
 
Sound familiar 

There is no EU military. EU is an economic and political Union, exclusive of military.

It is fair to say however that there are proposals, (and some enthusiasm in some influential circles) to create a EU military as one of the next steps towards creating an "ever closer union".

12 minutes ago, Bullie said:

NATO has NOTHING to do with Brexit, my dear boy.

"My dear boy", perhaps if you ponder my post, and maybe even read it in conjunction with post #20, then you may understand the point I am making. A point that has not been lost on at least one member (see post #33) with whom I am more often at loggerheads over matters "Brexit'"

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Airbus, which designs and manufactures wings for its aircraft in Britain, said on Sunday a "no-deal" Brexitwould be "absolutely catastrophic".

 

"There is no such thing as a managed 'no deal', it's absolutely catastrophic for us," senior vice president Katherine Bennett told Marr.

 

"Some difficult decisions will have to be made if there's no-deal (...) we will have to look at future investments."

It is a side issue, perhaps, but the more cynical might consider that the future of Airbus wing production in the UK was always under review. After all, there is a certain logic, as well as a massive saving to be made in making the wings in the same place as the rest of the airframe...

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

NATO relationships are not affected by Brexit other than UK may not continue to meet its GDP defense commitments to NATO if its economy slows because of a No Brexit Deal.

You are of course correct, however my point is that it is perhaps a little bit umh, ungrateful (?) to proclaim in such a way when we are supplying (and paying for) a significant part of the force which defends Estonia against a very real existential threat.

No doubt we will continue to contribute effectively (unlike some of our EU partners) to the NATO defence posture, in the Baltic States and elsewhere, after we leave the EU.

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

That just isn't true.

 

What other possible reason could you have for modifying a revolver with a laser marker?

13 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Aurora Police Chief Kristen Ziman said Martin shot six fellow employees, five of them fatally, at the sprawling warehouse where he had worked for 15 years, and wounded five police officers before he was slain by police 90 minutes later.

 

She said police had yet to determine whether the shooting was an impulsive act or premeditated, and that investigators had not immediately ascertained why he had been fired.

Well, fitting a revolver with a laser sight, and taking it to work with you, rather suggests a  degree of premeditation. 

There is only one reason for a weapon thus modified - to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible; nothing to do with sport or hunting. As long as the USA continues to regard the possession of such military style weapons by private individuals as acceptable then they will continue to suffer such shootings, and that means that innocent people will continue to die to appease the gun w******s. 

3 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

Illinois has some of the most draconian gun laws of any of the United States States. Gun laws don't work. 

So he probably obtained it and brought it from somewhere where they are as easy to buy as a packet of smarties... 

Gun laws work in the UK and USA because they are universally applied, from Penzance to Thurso, and Hobart to Darwin!

Golly, I just surprised myself with my knowledge of Australian geography! 

????

9 hours ago, ozmeldo said:

I've always brought clothes from US. Better quality, value, style, fabrics, fit. I can't think of one good reason to buy here outside of sheer convenience.

 

Well maybe, for the "Original Poster", being in Bangkok, and (taking a Scientific Wild Arsed Guess - SWAG - from looking at his avatar), being unlikely to travel to the US regularly are good reasons?

????

Bloomberg should really consider changing their name to "Department of Stating the Bleeding Obvious"!

????

2 hours ago, canopy said:

A lot of things cause people to kill others. Alcohol. Way too many innocent people are killed on the road and elsewhere by it every year. Should it be banned? Where is your story about the 2 old ladies run over by a drunk? Why is there a double standard?

 

It is not a "double standard" to refer to the matter of two old ladies being beaten to death by relatives seeking money to fund "ya baa", as a reason not to decriminalise it. It is a perfectly valid comment, in the context of that debate.

If Farma were to have said that being killed by a drunk driver was somehow less of a tragedy, more acceptable, that would have been an example of "double standards" being deployed. He didn't say that.

Personally, I am opposed to the legalisation of such addictive drugs (but then I have a teenage daughter), but I acknowledge that there are valid arguments for such legalisation. Having considered these arguments, I have formed the opinion that the benefits would be outweighed by the damage which it would do, so I am against legalisation.

Now, before everyone queues up to demand answers and accuse me of double standards; yes I do drink alcohol (but not to excess, and not before driving), and I used to smoke - packed it in 20 or so years ago. Both these habits, while possibly (certainly in the case of smoking) not good for my health are not dangerous to others, nor are they responsible for breaking society or the savage violent death of old ladies