Why Are You Even Here? The Surprising Attitudes of Some Expats in Thailand

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Yep... I agree... the trump is an anomaly.

 

but unfortunately, and disconcertingly, he has crystallized the inherent failure in the system to adequately deal with that anomaly.

 

Expecting other countries to once again trust the US, whilst there is still the potential for a trumpian anomaly in the future, is naive.

 

the US must overhaul its systems of checks and balances, before trust can be restored, as they have been shown to be flawed.

 

i realize that other actors have a dictators finger on the trigger (so why not another in Iran, if you wish to play that card)... and I condemn that... once again... transparency is needed to have trust in the trigger man... (Russia, China, NK, USA, Pakistan, India, isreal... limited to nil transparency... bad ju ju.) and I realize that this won’t change much... but not requiring our own leaders to act transparently, is wrong, and that can change (taking the US of my impromptu list above).

 

and whilst I freely acknowledge your balanced perspective, I would point out that not all posters are as well centered, and that some do actually think things are peachy, just as they are. (Sometimes, to scare myself, I watch interviews of people wearing red maga hats) 

 

i also still dispute the impact of the nuclear non proliferation pact, which was supposed to prevent new actors from getting the bomb, as well as getting rid of the bomb. So... in half of that, it’s failed miserably, with some 22000 nukes spread around the globe (that’s some proliferation, that), and access to nukes by a significant number of nation, in need, thru alliances. (Eg... Australia doesn’t have a bomb... but in need, Britain or the USA, will deliver one wherever it’s needed by Australia.... so, by default, Australia has a bomb)

 

The USA is by no means perfect, and some elements sure could use reforms and rethinking. But the USA, even with Trump at the helm, still got more checks and balances than most countries. To point it out again, perspective and proportions aren't bad words.

 

I think most of the USA's traditional long standing allies and partners will be thrilled to have him gone and normalcy restored. The new President, assuming he's not a complete moron, would probably enjoy quite a bit of international goodwill simply on the grounds of not being Trump.

 

The USA isn't "same same" as some of the nations mentioned - not with regard to transparency or the existence of checks and balances. Implying so is hyperbole, and not germane to making a point about the USA improving its system or Trump being this-and-that.

 

You can dispute what you feel like. If it helps, try to imagine how things would have gone if the NPT and such weren't in place. Yes, countries having nukes didn't give them up (mostly). But to a large extent, the possession of such arms is limited and regulated. It's not ideal, nor optimal - but it's an imperfect world we live in. As such, and compared with other international efforts, I think it can be said to be a reasonable success. Your last bit is far-fetched. All the more so considering the expressed view of the USA being untrustworthy. Me, I kinda doubt the USA will actually supply nukes on demand to any country.

 

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Trump, regardless of what his supporters wish for, is a temporary fixture. An anomaly. To take Trump's term in office as the norm for the USA is wrong. Arguments that run along the Trump-therefore-the-USA line often are. He might be pushing the limits and putting some strain on them checks and balances, but the fact stands that the USA got them.

 

Russia (de facto), China, North Korea, and Iran - all have leaders which are permanent installations. Not a whole lot by way of checks and balances there, and not likely to change much.

 

There was no suggestion anything was "peachy". Considering all the things that could have gone wrong, I think it is reasonable to say that as far as international efforts go, non-proliferation is generally working. Perfect it ain't. Just the best available. Beats the alternative.

 

It's about proportions, perspective and correctly targeting the criticism.

"It's about proportions, perspective and correctly targeting the criticism."  The synopsis of  the long term US propagandist rhetoric.

Trump is an anomaly only in the fact that he has exposed the philosophical agenda of those that arranged his position. A mistake  or a strategy? Obama was a a failed experiment in an attempt to placate allied US opinion following the installation  of  Bush junior despite the perceived  US advantages  he was used  for.

Now the  US is is dedicated  to the conservation of interests and diversions mainly limited to perpetuation of inflictions on arenas that historically  have eluded domination and assumption of resources plus wider retribution for resistance to presumed perpetual superiority.

Whilst the average good American citizen in general still believes in the indoctrination of virtuous militaristic enforcement of "democratic principles" global opinion is demonstrating increasing degrees of doubt in the advantage to wholesale compliance.

Trump may be an embarrassment but only because  he is exposing the  desperation of the US foreign  policy. Or perhaps that too is a component in political but  dispensable tactic?

There are those that for whatever reason cannot comprehend that the US administration is and has never been "benevolent" in the agenda  of  "empire" .

Nor can they concede that the strategy is  now failing because it is a historical factor  in "over reach".

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Did "we" have religious zealots with nukes as adversaries as well? With all due respect to Communism (both the Russian and the Chinese versions), I don't think it's quite the same.

 

As for trusting those entrusted with a nuclear button etc. - I seriously doubt "verifiable and transparent checks and balances of power" applies to Iran, with or without nuclear weapons.

 

For all the "gone wrong" things, there was no nuclear war. No global disaster related to military elements of nuclear tech and hardware. And the number of countries having nuclear arms is limited.

 

Bashing the USA won't make a nuclear Iran any more of a reasonable proposition.

One  fact: The USA is the only  country to have used a  nuclear weapon on a primarily civilian population of a country that was already in retreat and on the  verge of surrender.

And the world  is to have faith in the US presiding over any nuclear defense by any  nation  who is not a patsy ?

There is a sickening denial in some who dismiss the US  Politburo !

[Redline]

He’s lost all credibility 

[Morch]

48 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

One  fact: The USA is the only  country to have used a  nuclear weapon on a primarily civilian population of a country that was already in retreat and on the  verge of surrender.

And the world  is to have faith in the US presiding over any nuclear defense by any  nation  who is not a patsy ?

There is a sickening denial in some who dismiss the US  Politburo !

 

You're referencing events dating 70 years back, as if nothing happened or changed since then. The USA does not solely "preside" in the manner you imply. The NPT is an international effort. So is the JCPOA. And, of course, the USA does not have a "Politburo" other than in some nonsense posts.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

You're referencing events dating 70 years back, as if nothing happened or changed since then. The USA does not solely "preside" in the manner you imply. The NPT is an international effort. So is the JCPOA. And, of course, the USA does not have a "Politburo" other than in some nonsense posts.

Oh dear! Sensitive spot!

I understand that  you are  rolling responses from other posts  into this.

Yes I am  referencing events dating  back 70 years and indeed nothing has  changed although much has happened in accordance with exactly the  same political ideology.

I don't think I used the  term "preside" but rather than imply I would say declare the US  dictates, discards  or ignores International  Treaties  and accords  at it's  own  indiscriminate  will!

The NPT is an International Treaty which should be significantly  considered  more than an "effort". Despite  that several Nations  have escaped  scrutiny or  even objection. Can you name  your  favorite?

The JCPOA ? The USA  has  withdrawn, abandoned, voided, nullified! What call does it have to insist on  retaining compliance to? Or to  factor  compliance conditional to other nations in relation to itself?

Boggling!

If  you find the  term Politburo  unpalatable in terms  of the USA  then try to  object to " Bureau of Political_ Military Affairs". In a  militarist  state  there  is little  difference in wording versus function.

But  have a  nice day anyway.

 

 

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

"It's about proportions, perspective and correctly targeting the criticism."  The synopsis of  the long term US propagandist rhetoric.

Trump is an anomaly only in the fact that he has exposed the philosophical agenda of those that arranged his position. A mistake  or a strategy? Obama was a a failed experiment in an attempt to placate allied US opinion following the installation  of  Bush junior despite the perceived  US advantages  he was used  for.

Now the  US is is dedicated  to the conservation of interests and diversions mainly limited to perpetuation of inflictions on arenas that historically  have eluded domination and assumption of resources plus wider retribution for resistance to presumed perpetual superiority.

Whilst the average good American citizen in general still believes in the indoctrination of virtuous militaristic enforcement of "democratic principles" global opinion is demonstrating increasing degrees of doubt in the advantage to wholesale compliance.

Trump may be an embarrassment but only because  he is exposing the  desperation of the US foreign  policy. Or perhaps that too is a component in political but  dispensable tactic?

There are those that for whatever reason cannot comprehend that the US administration is and has never been "benevolent" in the agenda  of  "empire" .

Nor can they concede that the strategy is  now failing because it is a historical factor  in "over reach".

 

 

 

 

I don't know how asserting that the USA isn't perfect amounts to "propaganda". Guess it might look that way if someone indulges in too much conspiracy theory stuff, and holds extreme views on top.

 

Trump's position wasn't "arranged" (by whom?).

Bush Junior wasn't "installed".

Obama wasn't an "experiment".

 

To quote from your previous nonsense post/rant - "keep it straight".

 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Oh dear! Sensitive spot!

I understand that  you are  rolling responses from other posts  into this.

Yes I am  referencing events dating  back 70 years and indeed nothing has  changed although much has happened in accordance with exactly the  same political ideology.

I don't think I used the  term "preside" but rather than imply I would say declare the US  dictates, discards  or ignores International  Treaties  and accords  at it's  own  indiscriminate  will!

The NPT is an International Treaty which should be significantly  considered  more than an "effort". Despite  that several Nations  have escaped  scrutiny or  even objection. Can you name  your  favorite?

The JCPOA ? The USA  has  withdrawn, abandoned, voided, nullified! What call does it have to insist on  retaining compliance to? Or to  factor  compliance conditional to other nations in relation to itself?

Boggling!

If  you find the  term Politburo  unpalatable in terms  of the USA  then try to  object to " Bureau of Political_ Military Affairs". In a  militarist  state  there  is little  difference in wording versus function.

But  have a  nice day anyway.

 

 

 

Imagining things, again. Not a "sensitive spot". Just highlighting that you seem unable to discuss current events in a reasonable manner.

 

Quote

I understand that  you are  rolling responses from other posts  into this

Can't guess what you imagine you understand or how the comment means anything much.

 

Quote

I am  referencing events dating  back 70 years and indeed nothing has  changed

That's your bizarre opinion, rather than fact.

 

Quote

I don't think I used the  term "preside"

Guess it was another poster with the same handle who posted ".... faith in the US presiding over any nuclear defense....", then. Kinda amusing you can't even keep track of your own nonsensical rants.

 

The results of the NPT are not perfect, and nowhere was it claimed that they are. Most countries who had nuclear weapons retained them. That would apply to other countries (other than the USA) as well. Making it a solely USA issue is about as "propagandist" as it gets. It's also funny how on previous posts and topics you seemed perfectly alright ignoring or feigning ignorance of the NPT - in the context of Iran breaching terms.

 

The JCPOA is an international effort. That was the point. Do try and follow posts and arguments rather than inventing imaginary ones. Moving the goalposts from rant to rant doesn't make your talking points any more valid. As for the JCPOA being nullified, void etc. - the other signatories (including Iran) are in no hurry to claim that, or act on it.

 

I find the term "politburo" nonsensical. The same goes for the alternative rendition. Or indeed, your rants as a whole.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.  

 

[expatfromwyoming]

Since becoming Trump’s national security adviser, Bolton has continued his pattern of hate mongering. Along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he’s offered justification after justification for attacking Iran. When one hasn’t worked, he’s found another.