15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's the same argument a true Christian would make; "Sorry but Jesus died on the cross for us!" No evidence only belief.

Copy cat ? You see what you see, you hear what you hear, and maybe we do not see and hear the same? Thats the question

5 minutes ago, TedG said:

Yes, these social programs are also killing the budgets of the west.

There's enough resources. The problem is the wealth transfer from the poor to the rich... Look at what is going on in your country.

People giving themselves Trillion dollar pay packets. That's obscene. That shows you that the dollar in your pocket is almost worthless. They are pulling a scam on the people. That's what happening right now. Market manipulation, outright theft. Mental midgets like yourself are cheering it on, thinking you are winning, when really they are picking your pocket. Your quality of life goes down and they tell you to blame the Left or the Immigrants or...anyone but the people who are actually stealing from you.

14 minutes ago, TedG said:

Have you ever seen a thread stay on topic?

Doesn't mean that the topic has changed. It's still about mental illness, rather than politics. Talking about the way you think.

18 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I do

I’m not going to argue, because as far as I can see there is no evidence for a god, at least not for any of the gods humans believe in. Whatever may exist, no human actually knows. The rest lives in the mind, rent free.

And when I look at what is coming out of the White House now, I think it is fair to ask serious questions. Donald Trump is back in office, and this is not just about one odd moment. He joined pastors praying over him in the Oval Office, while he and people around him have increasingly wrapped war and power in Christian language. At the same time, his administration has used openly religious framing around the Iran war, and even posted and then deleted AI-generated images showing him in Jesus like imagery. That is not a small thing. It raises real questions about judgment, ego, and the mixing of religion, personality cult, and state power.

So my question is this: is that acceptable? Does that look like the behavior of a balanced president acting in the interests of a modern democracy, or does it look like a leader tipping in the wrong direction?

I do not like much of what Trump says and does, but policy wise, I like a lot more than I dislike.

And yes, I like the direction Trump is taking the country much better than the direction it was going,

18 minutes ago, Hummin said:

And let’s be honest, if Biden or Kamala Harris had stood in the Oval Office surrounded by religious leaders praying over them while war was being framed in near-biblical terms, and then posted Jesus-like imagery of themselves, the outrage would have been instant and relentless. The double standard is obvious.

The outrage for Trump was instant and relentless. The only double standard is that it came from both sides for Trump. Had it been Harris, the secular left would have been praising her, the religions left would have been silent, and the religious-right would be up in arms.

Virtually every elected official in the US claims to be religious, the vast majority claim to be Christian. Both Obam and Biden claim to be Christians, and both participated in national prayer breakfasts and public religious services. Both have had religious leaders in the Oval Office, and both have invoked God into their speeches and whatnot, so while I don't like it, I think it a bit hypocritical to get all bent about Trump doing it.

And if Harris had been elected, the borders would be wide open, DEI would be on steroids, taxes would be higher, welfare for illegals would be exploding, energy prices would be higher, government would be bigger, real income would be smaller, men would be in girls' showers, Iran would have nuclear warheads and a delivery system, and any number of other things I am against.

I get it. You hate Trump, and you would rather the US had all the things I listed than Trump, and it's your position that I am mentally unstable because I do not agree with you.

5 hours ago, saintdomingo said:

Probably him that gave me the thumbs down, good for him. Must be sitting brimming over with nastiness and trying hard to limit himself to 20 posts a day.

What was his last name.?

He had 40 posts in about half an hour earlier on.

47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not like much of what Trump says and does, but policy wise, I like a lot more than I dislike.

And yes, I like the direction Trump is taking the country much better than the direction it was going,

The outrage for Trump was instant and relentless. The only double standard is that it came from both sides for Trump. Had it been Harris, the secular left would have been praising her, the religions left would have been silent, and the religious-right would be up in arms.

Virtually every elected official in the US claims to be religious, the vast majority claim to be Christian. Both Obam and Biden claim to be Christians, and both participated in national prayer breakfasts and public religious services. Both have had religious leaders in the Oval Office, and both have invoked God into their speeches and whatnot, so while I don't like it, I think it a bit hypocritical to get all bent about Trump doing it.

And if Harris had been elected, the borders would be wide open, DEI would be on steroids, taxes would be higher, welfare for illegals would be exploding, energy prices would be higher, government would be bigger, real income would be smaller, men would be in girls' showers, Iran would have nuclear warheads and a delivery system, and any number of other things I am against.

I get it. You hate Trump, and you would rather the US had all the things I listed than Trump, and it's your position that I am mentally unstable because I do not agree with you.

I see what I see, and Trump is not a good man. Calling that hate is deflection at its best. I despise what he is, what he does, and what he stands for. The same goes for those who keep making excuses for him.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

Yes, these social programs are also killing the budgets of the west.

The Australian debt to GDP ratio is 42.6%. In the rabidly anti-left US, it is 137%.

Try harder.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

it's your position that I am mentally unstable because I do not agree with you.

No, it's my position that you have mental issues, demonstrated by you posting about the Left in a thread concerning mental illness on a website based in the ASEAN region.

You still aren't getting it...

Further your obsession with people 'hating' Trump. That's another weird thought process that has been instilled in you, seemingly without your realising it.

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

My post is full of facts and let's wait for the end result, as I've said over and over. The war doesn't have to be "won" if Iran surrenders and negotiates. Having Iran's people living in a safer place is the most important thing right? If boots go onto the ground, many will die, especially on Iran's side, and I'm thinking it's soldiers don't want any part of that.

Your post is full of opinions and ifs. History says boots on the ground will only be accepted by the American public very briefly, they don't have the stomach for another round of body bags. Geography and statistics say there will be plenty of those.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Your post is full of opinions and ifs. History says boots on the ground will only be accepted by the American public very briefly, they don't have the stomach for another round of body bags. Geography and statistics say there will be plenty of those.

Can't make statistics for the present as things aren't the same. Yes, most Americans don't want to see Americans killed.

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Can't make statistics for the present as things aren't the same. Yes, most Americans don't want to see Americans killed.

Historically, statistics say it takes 3-4 attackers to take out a single defender in an entrenched postion.

The regular Iranian army is 420,000 strong. The IRGC is 190,000.

Does America have 2 million soldiers on active duty?

(That was a rhetorical question )

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Historically, statistics say it takes 3-4 attackers to take out a single defender in an entrenched postion.

The regular Iranian army is 420,000 strong. The IRGC is 190,000.

Does America have 2 million soldiers on active duty?

(That was a rhetorical question )

It also takes a guided missile from a drone to take out a group. Helicopters can demolish a group with a single shot also. A warthog can do the same, to soldiers or vehicles. Americans are much better trained and equipped than Iran's soldiers. Do you think Iran's army isn't sitting there wondering when they're time to disappear might come? The world now fears America's military, as they've shown some of their updated capabilities, and how many losses has America had compared to Iran's? The only problem is if Iran does like others have done, and hide among civilians in buildings. But civilians can be evacuated.

7 hours ago, Rockyroad said:

If somebody was going to Thailand next month for the 1st time they would learn more from AI in 5 minutes than 5 weeks reading the drivel on here.

If this forum represents the average farang group it sure is a sad bunch of bored people.

You're now up to nearly 60 posts this morning, most impressive I'm sure.

Not exactly a mental illness but I do notice a well-known phenomena on AN.

To wit: Expats/immigrants in a foreign country an more passionately patriotic than their fellow countrymen who didn't leave.

45 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

It also takes a guided missile from a drone to take out a group. Helicopters can demolish a group with a single shot also. A warthog can do the same, to soldiers or vehicles. Americans are much better trained and equipped than Iran's soldiers. Do you think Iran's army isn't sitting there wondering when they're time to disappear might come? The world now fears America's military, as they've shown some of their updated capabilities, and how many losses has America had compared to Iran's? The only problem is if Iran does like others have done, and hide among civilians in buildings. But civilians can be evacuated.

Terrain is important in a conflict. If American soldiers are so good, why did they have to scuttle out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs?

You have a starry-eyed view of American capabilities. Here's a news flash - British and Australian soldiers are better. They regard Americans as an undisciplined rabble that cannot survive in the field without massive support.

Iran has between 3000-5000 MANPADS, with more on the way from Russia. You think the Iranians won't be using them against helicopters and Warthogs?

IIRC the US has lost 7 combatants already,. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the casualties it will have if it actually is stupid enough to invade.

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

I see what I see, and Trump is not a good man. Calling that hate is deflection at its best. I despise what he is, what he does, and what he stands for. The same goes for those who keep making excuses for him.

The poster child for bad behavior (and absolute dishonesty) was Clinton. But he was a pretty good president.

So's Trump, even if I cringe sometimes when I see what he said and (more often), what he retweets on social media.

Besides, at least we have borders now and some of the immigrant corruption is being rooted out. I can't imagine how bad it would be under Obama IV.

7 minutes ago, impulse said:

The poster child for bad behavior (and absolute dishonesty) was Clinton. But he was a pretty good president.

So's Trump, even if I cringe sometimes when I see what he said and (more often), what he retweets on social media.

Besides, at least we have borders now and some of the immigrant corruption is being rooted out. I can't imagine how bad it would be under Obama IV.

Swapping arsenic for strychnine doesn't work out well for anybody.

31 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Terrain is important in a conflict. If American soldiers are so good, why did they have to scuttle out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs?

You have a starry-eyed view of American capabilities. Here's a news flash - British and Australian soldiers are better. They regard Americans as an undisciplined rabble that cannot survive in the field without massive support.

Iran has between 3000-5000 MANPADS, with more on the way from Russia. You think the Iranians won't be using them against helicopters and Warthogs?

IIRC the US has lost 7 combatants already,. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the casualties it will have if it actually is stupid enough to invade.

I actually sit back and see what the military has done. Of course you'll side with the Aussie soldiers. I won't put them down, as they've helped us, but you are wrong about the US soldiers. Listening to what a couple of Aussie soldiers have said means nothing. History has shown otherwise with stats. It seems by looking at casualty differences that America is pretty far above all others.

1 hour ago, Rockyroad said:

I see you live in Jomtien.

Nothing wrong with Jomtien - I spent 5 years going around Thailand surveying places where I could bear to buy a condo and live over winter - Jomtiem won hands down because , it was cheap, near the airport, had baht buses and now Grab/Bolt, the sea and enough farangs that if we ever had to go war with the Thais we couldn last over the weekend. I still can't do more than 3 months without going mad but it still is the place if you have to live there then you could do a lot worse. My wife loves it more than me because I bought if for her in her name as it was on the Thai side. But when I'm gone it will be her beachhead back to Thailand and I have never for one minute ever regretted doing that.

4 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Nothing wrong with Jomtien - I spent 5 years going around Thailand surveying places where I could bear to buy a condo and live over winter - Jomtiem won hands down because , it was cheap, near the airport, had baht buses and now Grab/Bolt, the sea and enough farangs that if we ever had to go war with the Thais we couldn last over the weekend. I still can't do more than 3 months without going mad but it still is the place if you have to live there then you could do a lot worse. My wife loves it more than me because I bought if for her in her name as it was on the Thai side. But when I'm gone it will be her beachhead back to Thailand and I have never for one minute ever regretted doing that.

Thanks for a normal posting.

10 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

Thanks for a normal posting.

Sorry I won't let it happen again ! Us afficiandos refer to it as Chom Tien and the World Famous Thepprasit Load . And this year's visit excelled all previous with the opening of new toilets at it's world class bus station with it's sink tap yet to go south.

3 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

I actually sit back and see what the military has done. Of course you'll side with the Aussie soldiers. I won't put them down, as they've helped us, but you are wrong about the US soldiers. Listening to what a couple of Aussie soldiers have said means nothing. History has shown otherwise with stats. It seems by looking at casualty differences that America is pretty far above all others.

History says the US army failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The British put down a Communist insurgency in Malaysia.

When the Indonesians attempted to invade East Timor, the Australian army gave them a harsh lesson in jungle warfare.

There are more metrics than casualty ratios.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

History says the US army failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The British put down a Communist insurgency in Malaysia.

When the Indonesians attempted to invade East Timor, the Australian army gave them a harsh lesson in jungle warfare.

There are more metrics than casualty ratios.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The military won in all those wars. All objectives weren't accomplished.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

History says the US army failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The British put down a Communist insurgency in Malaysia.

When the Indonesians attempted to invade East Timor, the Australian army gave them a harsh lesson in jungle warfare.

There are more metrics than casualty ratios.

History says Nixon and the US Congress failed in Vietnam. The military did their part.

History says Obama failed in Iraq. The military did their part.

History says Biden failed in Afghanistan. The military did their part.

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

The military won in all those wars. All objectives weren't accomplished.

If the US had won, you would have had democracies. You don't.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If the US had won, you would have had democracies. You don't.

Vietnam was a mistake as they are okay with Communism. Thinking back then wasn't the same as it is now. Democracy is the best form of government, especially for the people, but we aren't trying to force democracy on Iran but ridding it of how the regime is. It's up to them to have the type of government that works for them and isn't killing those who try to change things. Iran's government isn't all bad of course, but certain parts of it are.

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

History says Nixon and the US Congress failed in Vietnam. The military did their part.

History says Obama failed in Iraq. The military did their part.

History says Biden failed in Afghanistan. The military did their part.

IMO it was public opinion that failed.

The war in Vietnam nearly bankrupted America, forcing Nixon to take the currency of the gold standard.

US debt is now $39 trillion, and a billion dollars a day with Iran is not helping.

It would not surprise me to see Trump default on that debt, he has form.

46 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Vietnam was a mistake as they are okay with Communism. Thinking back then wasn't the same as it is now. Democracy is the best form of government, especially for the people, but we aren't trying to force democracy on Iran but ridding it of how the regime is. It's up to them to have the type of government that works for them and isn't killing those who try to change things. Iran's government isn't all bad of course, but certain parts of it are.

Democracy, but not the rigged kind that you have in the USA...

Oh no...wrong thread for political statements...

44 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Vietnam was a mistake as they are okay with Communism. Thinking back then wasn't the same as it is now. Democracy is the best form of government, especially for the people, but we aren't trying to force democracy on Iran but ridding it of how the regime is. It's up to them to have the type of government that works for them and isn't killing those who try to change things. Iran's government isn't all bad of course, but certain parts of it are.

IIRC the US funded the Taliban in Afghanistan, then spent 20 years trying to kick them out. Clarity in what the US tries to achieve does not seem to be in the skill set, and Iran is no exception.

It would be nice if the US focused on getting the Strait of Hormuz open, instead of demanding what Iran will never cede.

This thread is a fiction thread,