Living In Fear, Or Live With Fear.

[geriatrickid]

The US location practices deterrence. The visible presence of security will hopefully discourage opportunistic attacks and save lives. One is deluded if one does not think that there are not armed personnel in the UK embassy. You can't make a move without being observed on camera. The same for the Canadian, French and German diplomatic missions. Just because you do not see the armed personnel does not mean they are not observing you. Try the Chinese compound for an extra zing on your surveillance fix. During the protests against the Danish diplomatic missions over the editorial cartoons, there was increased security measures implemented. Would your have criticized the Danish embassy?

[FunFon]

Perhaps I missed it, but I believe no one's brought up the fact that Chiang Mai's been mentioned as a location specifically targeted by jihadists or whatever you want to call them, big notices in the media in past weeks. Actually some reports said the threats were the result of the DEA et al being more effective on interdicting large drug trafficking, so of course they could just as easily be coming from corrupt elements of the Thai police/military.

However I definitely disagree with those that try to make these two statements equivalent:

"anti-Western sentiments are to some degree caused by exploitative foreign policies by our governments and corporations designed for our economic benefit, including criminal interference in Muslim countries' internal affairs, including sponsoring coups etc"

as opposed to

"the US deserves to be attacked by terrorists"

Personally I do agree with one aspect of the OP's opinion. Responding to the 9/11-type threats with disproportionately massive military methods is definitely counterproductive to the US' own self-interests.

If they'd just taken appropriate defensive and security measures, tightening up implementation of existing practices, and otherwise just ignored the problem, the US would be much better off today.

They put up with how many thousands of deaths each year as a normal part of modern life for the sake of not taking care of the poor properly, being "free" to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco and drive private cars at speed and not properly preventing environmental pollution etc etc. ???

Not to mention the right to bear arms.

But giving up American's sacred civil liberties and perceived moral high ground in the world won at great expense in WW2? Turning the place into an even more secretive surveillance state and doing away with the rule of law and decent checks and balances? That's worth protecting a few paltry thousand American lives?

And then throw in the financial consequences, American grandkids yet unborn will still be suffering from those all their lives. . .

IMO better to let a few people get randomly killed, even if it averages three thousand a year.

But then it's not a rational response is it, more like "how dare they" wounded pride I suppose.

Don't get me wrong I love America, the place the people, even in many ways its political economic system.

Full disclosure I'm basically a pacifist.

Edited March 12, 2013 by FunFon

[rijb]

I think we should give the terrorists what they want .... Cheney and Bush!

[chiangmaikelly]

I think we should give the terrorists what they want .... Cheney and Bush!

Little out of date are we?

[rijb]

Cheney is still talking nonsense as we speak. Bush is painting puppies.

I could see Vietnam (that was my time in service). But, I still can't see Iraq.

Edited March 12, 2013 by rijb

[hookedondhamma]

Considering some embassies are targeted for terrorism across the world I think there is no harm in being cautious.

I'm British but I see this as a yank bashing thread. Not even quite sure what the OP is trying to achieve?!

His bridge has been destroyed, and needs a place to stay ... Hence this thread ...

[NeverSure]

Perhaps I missed it, but I believe no one's brought up the fact that Chiang Mai's been mentioned as a location specifically targeted by jihadists or whatever you want to call them, big notices in the media in past weeks. Actually some reports said the threats were the result of the DEA et al being more effective on interdicting large drug trafficking, so of course they could just as easily be coming from corrupt elements of the Thai police/military.

However I definitely disagree with those that try to make these two statements equivalent:

"anti-Western sentiments are to some degree caused by exploitative foreign policies by our governments and corporations designed for our economic benefit, including criminal interference in Muslim countries' internal affairs, including sponsoring coups etc"

as opposed to

"the US deserves to be attacked by terrorists"

Personally I do agree with one aspect of the OP's opinion. Responding to the 9/11-type threats with disproportionately massive military methods is definitely counterproductive to the US' own self-interests.

If they'd just taken appropriate defensive and security measures, tightening up implementation of existing practices, and otherwise just ignored the problem, the US would be much better off today.

They put up with how many thousands of deaths each year as a normal part of modern life for the sake of not taking care of the poor properly, being "free" to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco and drive private cars at speed and not properly preventing environmental pollution etc etc. ???

Not to mention the right to bear arms.

But giving up American's sacred civil liberties and perceived moral high ground in the world won at great expense in WW2? Turning the place into an even more secretive surveillance state and doing away with the rule of law and decent checks and balances? That's worth protecting a few paltry thousand American lives?

And then throw in the financial consequences, American grandkids yet unborn will still be suffering from those all their lives. . .

IMO better to let a few people get randomly killed, even if it averages three thousand a year.

But then it's not a rational response is it, more like "how dare they" wounded pride I suppose.

Don't get me wrong I love America, the place the people, even in many ways its political economic system.

Full disclosure I'm basically a pacifist.

Geez. These Muslim terrorists have a "religious need" to kill everyone in the whole world who isn't Muslim. That includes their own people who aren't the "right kind" of Muslim. They kill more Muslims than anyone else.

Not only that, but they have a religious belief that they get massive rewards in the afterlife for dying for Allah in the killing of "infidels."

Peace isn't an option with these people. They aren't interested in peace that doesn't include killing you first. Their idea of peace is a world populated only by Muslim extremists.

Do you want that kind of a world?

Is there anything in this world that you would fight for? How about a family member, say a child if you have one? Nothing? Just pacifism and let the fkrs kill?

Muslim terrorists are being fought and defended against in countries all over this world including Thailand.

You think the US is too tough and it's better to just sacrifice 3,000 people a year than to fight back? Many believe that the "war on terror" in the Middle East has kept the terrorists busy, and kept their nonsense more on their own soil. Not only that, but many of their main leaders have been killed.

It's been more than ten years since 9/11 and you would be happy to have 30,000 innocents killed during that time rather than to fight. Have you taken notice that their hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? Attempts have been thwarted including attempts on airliners. Before that we had such things a Lockerbie and 9/11.

There have been successful terrorist killings in other countries which pride themselves in not being a "US." London got the shit bombed out of its trains in 2005.

"Not to mention the right to bear arms." A little off topic are we? Have to get that little bit of hatred in there, do you?

As I keep saying. Some people are bat shit crazy, and if they prefer to not defend themselves against terrorists, so be it.

I want to see what happens to the UK in 20 years as the newest exploding (forgive) generation of Muslims reaches the age of majority. Not that terrorists mind using kids as walking bombs.

[FunFon]

> Geez. These Muslim terrorists have a "religious need" to kill everyone in the whole world who isn't Muslim.

> Peace isn't an option with these people

> Do you want that kind of a world?

Actually I think they've gotten 90% of their power from our disproportionate and ineffective - and what will prove to be self-defeating - military response.

> You think the US is too tough and it's better to just sacrifice 3,000 people a year than to fight back?

Not "too tough" just big and stupid, willing to sacrifice its core beliefs and increase the power of its real enemies fighting the convenient targets to hand. Saddam had nothing absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't win that war, we're going to lose the Afghans too, both countries will end up much worse off than if we'd never gone in and we've spawned millions more jihadists, and more importantly lost the respect of common decent people all over the world living in countries that actually have (or had) a chance of becoming more democratic and free - unlike in that part of the world where it's a pipe dream.

> Many believe that the "war on terror" in the Middle East has kept the terrorists busy, and kept their nonsense more on their own soil. Not only that, but many of their main leaders have been killed.

We could have accomplished the positive goals using 1% of the resources.

And I hope you don't think the Bush / Cheney machine didn't have people pushing the interests of the military-industrial complex, it wasn't just about the oil, tons of their friends made billions of billions.

And we didn't even make friends in that part of the world, the people we try to install end up being the ones that bite us the hardest.

> It's been more than ten years since 9/11 and you would be happy to have 30,000 innocents

Hard to say but yes, the incalculable damage to US interests, the huge loss of lives and the financial costs, and most of all - giving up the principles - rule of law, checks and balances, transparency - that made the US unique, openly and routinely using kidnapping assassination and torture for god's sake, and what have we gained?

Are we more secure in the world? What if not 1% but 10% of those resources had been applied, within existing legal frameworks, in a smart way by people truly focused on getting the real job done, do you really doubt we wouldn't have gotten Osama and the others?

And we wouldn't be a laughing-stock, one that the only people that don't laugh and sneer are those that want something from us, or are afraid of us. No respect anymore in the world.

Why do you think so many people all around the world, and even within the US believe some element of the three-letter agencies or other allies of the pro-Israel MI complex actually engineered 9/11?

Do you know how many people I come across on a day to day basis don't believe at all that mankind ever went to the moon? If the USSR had made it, then they'd believe it, but because it was a Yankee project, now they think Kennedy just hired Stanley Kubrick. Why? Once you lose credibility, how many generations to get it back?

Not to mention the concrete financial consequences. Once international trade really gets off the dollar and we actually have to pay interest on the trillions we've borrowed, the fact that our trade imbalance isn't going to get corrected, the dollar's not going to "correct" gently, it's going to lose all credibility just like our banking and political system have.

We used to be able to tell people how to fix and maintain a decent economic system, we used to be able to take a stand (when we occasionally felt like it when it did'nt interfere too much with realpolitik) on HUMAN RIGHTS for god's sake, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of privacy, all that stuff's just gone out the window and we're basically just as tin-pot a pseudo-democracy now as Thailand is here, just a little more nicely dressed up for show but under the covers same-same.

"Not to mention the right to bear arms." A little off topic are we? Have to get that little bit of hatred in there, do you?

No hatred, I actually believe in that right. Just pointing out that the number of US lives sacrificed for us to keep that right is far more than the 3,000 per year I'm WAG'ing is worth it for these other much more important issues. And most Americans think it's a fair trade.

Note that that particular transaction doesn't happen to run counter to the interests of those that actually run the show. But being a responsible super-power and bringing peace to the world sure does. . .

[NeverSure]

> Geez. These Muslim terrorists have a "religious need" to kill everyone in the whole world who isn't Muslim.

> Peace isn't an option with these people

> Do you want that kind of a world?

Actually I think they've gotten 90% of their power from our disproportionate and ineffective - and what will prove to be self-defeating - military response.

> You think the US is too tough and it's better to just sacrifice 3,000 people a year than to fight back?

Not "too tough" just big and stupid, willing to sacrifice its core beliefs and increase the power of its real enemies fighting the convenient targets to hand. Saddam had nothing absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't win that war, we're going to lose the Afghans too, both countries will end up much worse off than if we'd never gone in and we've spawned millions more jihadists, and more importantly lost the respect of common decent people all over the world living in countries that actually have (or had) a chance of becoming more democratic and free - unlike in that part of the world where it's a pipe dream.

> Many believe that the "war on terror" in the Middle East has kept the terrorists busy, and kept their nonsense more on their own soil. Not only that, but many of their main leaders have been killed.

We could have accomplished the positive goals using 1% of the resources.

And I hope you don't think the Bush / Cheney machine didn't have people pushing the interests of the military-industrial complex, it wasn't just about the oil, tons of their friends made billions of billions.

And we didn't even make friends in that part of the world, the people we try to install end up being the ones that bite us the hardest.

> It's been more than ten years since 9/11 and you would be happy to have 30,000 innocents

Hard to say but yes, the incalculable damage to US interests, the huge loss of lives and the financial costs, and most of all - giving up the principles - rule of law, checks and balances, transparency - that made the US unique, openly and routinely using kidnapping assassination and torture for god's sake, and what have we gained?

Are we more secure in the world? What if not 1% but 10% of those resources had been applied, within existing legal frameworks, in a smart way by people truly focused on getting the real job done, do you really doubt we wouldn't have gotten Osama and the others?

And we wouldn't be a laughing-stock, one that the only people that don't laugh and sneer are those that want something from us, or are afraid of us. No respect anymore in the world.

Why do you think so many people all around the world, and even within the US believe some element of the three-letter agencies or other allies of the pro-Israel MI complex actually engineered 9/11?

Do you know how many people I come across on a day to day basis don't believe at all that mankind ever went to the moon? If the USSR had made it, then they'd believe it, but because it was a Yankee project, now they think Kennedy just hired Stanley Kubrick. Why? Once you lose credibility, how many generations to get it back?

Not to mention the concrete financial consequences. Once international trade really gets off the dollar and we actually have to pay interest on the trillions we've borrowed, the fact that our trade imbalance isn't going to get corrected, the dollar's not going to "correct" gently, it's going to lose all credibility just like our banking and political system have.

We used to be able to tell people how to fix and maintain a decent economic system, we used to be able to take a stand (when we occasionally felt like it when it did'nt interfere too much with realpolitik) on HUMAN RIGHTS for god's sake, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of privacy, all that stuff's just gone out the window and we're basically just as tin-pot a pseudo-democracy now as Thailand is here, just a little more nicely dressed up for show but under the covers same-same.

"Not to mention the right to bear arms." A little off topic are we? Have to get that little bit of hatred in there, do you?

No hatred, I actually believe in that right. Just pointing out that the number of US lives sacrificed for us to keep that right is far more than the 3,000 per year I'm WAG'ing is worth it for these other much more important issues. And most Americans think it's a fair trade.

Note that that particular transaction doesn't happen to run counter to the interests of those that actually run the show. But being a responsible super-power and bringing peace to the world sure does. . .

Happy, happy dreamland.

Some things are worth dying for. Pacifism isn't one of them. I personally don't agree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan as they were fought, but I do believe in blasting the shit out of any known terrorists, weakening their fighting capabilities, destroying their arms, killing their leaders...

Many people believe that we have kept the terrorists busy enough in the ME that we have indeed been safer at home. Your mileage may vary. It's noteworthy that they haven't attacked us again since 9/11 but they have attacked other countries who haven't gone after them.

On September 1, 2004, the Muslim terrorists attacked a school in Beslan, Russia and killed 338 people. 172 of them were children. School girls were RAPED. Link

By your logic, Russia must have done something wrong.

By sane logic, criminals are blamed for crimes.

You fail to understand that no country is exempt from a religious fanaticism which believes that all non-Muslims must die.

You can't conceive of why I'd like to arm every teacher and every adult employee in every single school as a deterrent. You can't conceive of why I'm allowed to carry a gun into any school I'd like and so is any other crime-record free adult, and why I wish I had been there to sacrifice myself for some of those kids. I would have gotten some of those bastards. Some things are worth dying for.

We went to Europe in WWII simply because some things are worth dying for. Never mind that you're a pacifist. Hitler wasn't so you're welcome to die for nothing. I'd rather die for something. Killing a terrorist to save others would be high on my list.

This is a worldwide "us or them" war that no one asked for. Many countries including Thailand are fighting these bastards.

It's us or them. Take your choice.

[homeownership]

OK I think it might be time to put this thread in a bit of perspective.

The US Embassies & Consulates around the world are always heavily fortified. It has nothing to do with the people of that country and no stain on their local population or the way that country views the USA.

The American Embassy in Grosvenor Square, London is one of the most fortfield buildings in the world and the Americans are closing it and moving to a new location (not to be mentioned here), which will have fortifications, a garrison of marines and a moat (yes a moat). It will be one of the most formiddible buildings in the world when it is completed.

Obviously Britain has a "special relationship" with the USA and despite media attempts to the mudden the water, harbour no ill will to Americans.

It is US policy to protect its embassies, whereas British & French Embassies are unlikely to have a detachment of marines in the basements due to their own policies and of course costs.

[NeverSure]

Actually the site isn't a secret. It's in the Nine Elms area and here's an aerial.

[NeverSure]

-snip- Obviously Britain has a "special relationship" with the USA and despite media attempts to the mudden the water, harbour no ill will to Americans.

You haven't been around this site much, have you? I liked Brits until I joined this forum. This thread isn't by far the only one which will turn into US bashing here. I just attribute it to penis envy and point out how tiny they are.

[StreetCowboy]

-snip- Obviously Britain has a "special relationship" with the USA and despite media attempts to the mudden the water, harbour no ill will to Americans.

You haven't been around this site much, have you? I liked Brits until I joined this forum. This thread isn't by far the only one which will turn into US bashing here. I just attribute it to penis envy and point out how tiny they are.

Children never like being criticised by their parents.

SC

[NeverSure]

-snip- Obviously Britain has a "special relationship" with the USA and despite media attempts to the mudden the water, harbour no ill will to Americans.

You haven't been around this site much, have you? I liked Brits until I joined this forum. This thread isn't by far the only one which will turn into US bashing here. I just attribute it to penis envy and point out how tiny they are.

Children never like being criticised by their parents.

SC

If you mean that the UK is the parent of the US, that's a joke. Britain tried, and got it's ass kicked off the property. Since then there are so many nations which have contributed to the population of the US, that I don't actually even know anyone who claims British heritage. People came from all over.

If on the other hand you mean "parent" in the sense that the US has had to protect and support the UK, and provide them with things like TV, cell phones, the internet, computers, and even properly built autos, then yes, the UK resents it.

I just chuckle at their little wieners.

British:

American:

Edited March 13, 2013 by NeverSure

[Radar501]

Of course the USA needs beefed-up security at its Overseas Missions. It is the most-hated nation on the planet, and it is so hated because it has, and continues to, stick its nose in the soverign affairs of other countries.

"We went to Europe in WWII simply because some things are worth dying for. Never mind that you're a pacifist. Hitler wasn't so you're welcome to die for nothing. I'd rather die for something. Killing a terrorist to save others would be high on my list."

Killing 170,000 innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII was high on the list of US terrorists. Americans can see the justification of those attacks, as the pages of history are always written by the victors.

"If on the other hand you mean "parent" in the sense that the US has had to protect and support the UK, and provide them with things like TV, cell phones, the internet, computers, and even properly built autos, then yes, the UK resents it.

I just chuckle at their little wieners."

It's more about quality, not quantity.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Radar501

[NeverSure]

Of course the USA needs beefed-up security at its Overseas Missions. It is the most-hated nation on the planet, and it is so hated because it has, and continues to, stick its nose in the soverign affairs of other countries.

"We went to Europe in WWII simply because some things are worth dying for. Never mind that you're a pacifist. Hitler wasn't so you're welcome to die for nothing. I'd rather die for something. Killing a terrorist to save others would be high on my list."

Killing 170,000 innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII was high on the list of US terrorists. Americans can see the justification of those attacks, as the pages of history are always written by the victors.

The Japanese started that. Someone had to finish it. Have you considered how many allied forces and Japanese would have died had there instead been an invasion of Japan?

Have you considered what will happen to N. Korea if they launch a nuke now, and do you have a problem with that?

Do you have a problem with the countless Germans who died from Allied bombing to stop that war?

The way you win a war is by holding the citizens accountable for their leaders. You make the citizens wish there was no war, and press that onto their leaders.

"If on the other hand you mean "parent" in the sense that the US has had to protect and support the UK, and provide them with things like TV, cell phones, the internet, computers, and even properly built autos, then yes, the UK resents it.

I just chuckle at their little wieners."

It's more about quality, not quantity.

Exactly.

[daoyai]

Neversure and Radar501 should just get a room so they can compare the the size and quality of their "wieners". maybe they will discover they are not different after all.

[a99az]

What does it say about the people? Some live in fear and some learn to live with the fear.

Just a snide little America bash. Have at it.

Some countries are big and important enough to have enemies and so, not having their heads in the sand, they take precautions to prevent disruption and loss of life. It's not a matter of fear particularly. Other countries are simply insignificant despite their noise, bluster, and once-proud traditions.

BTW, what does the vast number of surveillance cameras in Britain say about the fearless Brits?

At the end of 2006, the UK was described by the Surveillance Studies Network as being 'the most surveilled country' among the industrialized Western states.[5] Although, the report this was based on has since been disputed. The original study states that there are ~4.2m CCTV Cameras in operation in the UK, a new report in 2011 shows that there are actually ~1.85m cameras in operation in the UK,[6] 92% of which, being privately owned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#United_Kingdom

Now now! Thats not nice, I happen to know two very nice Americans. As for your opening comment, and I quote " Some countries are big and important enough to have enemies...." How odd, are you saying that America has earned the right to have enemies?

[a99az]

-snip- Obviously Britain has a "special relationship" with the USA and despite media attempts to the mudden the water, harbour no ill will to Americans.

You haven't been around this site much, have you? I liked Brits until I joined this forum. This thread isn't by far the only one which will turn into US bashing here. I just attribute it to penis envy and point out how tiny they are.

Children never like being criticised by their parents.

SC

If you mean that the UK is the parent of the US, that's a joke. Britain tried, and got it's ass kicked off the property. Since then there are so many nations which have contributed to the population of the US, that I don't actually even know anyone who claims British heritage. People came from all over.

If on the other hand you mean "parent" in the sense that the US has had to protect and support the UK, and provide them with things like TV, cell phones, the internet, computers, and even properly built autos, then yes, the UK resents it.

I just chuckle at their little wieners.

British:

American:

Just the sort of comment one has come to expect from an American.

[chiangmaikelly]

Just the sort of comment one has come to expect from an American.

You wanted a Yank bashing thread you got one. The American embassy has guards, what a shock.

[NeverSure]

"Just the sort of comment one has come to expect from an American."

No, sorry. You haven't apparently read this thread, or any of many others.

It's normally the Americans who are being bashed and I'm tired of it. I actually have nothing against the Brits. I'm just always amazed at how quickly they bash Americans.

I honestly believe they are actually ashamed of the way the US has to protect them. They KNOW that if something breaks out with N. Korea or Iran or China or... They can live in the shadow of the US which is ready for it.

Military spending by country. How do you like "them wieners?":

Edited March 13, 2013 by NeverSure

[farang000999]

This is not a discussion it is an invitation to an argument. Everyone knows that the British and the Americans are tied at the hip when it comes to foreign policy and are natural allies for better or worse.

Edited March 13, 2013 by farang000999

[IMA_FARANG]

Why do you assume that the British consulate has no security just because they are not obvious and in your face?

Don't be silly.

In these days of international terrorists no country can afford not to have some kind of security.

It just may not be obvious.

[IMA_FARANG]

This is not a discussion it is an invitation to an argument. Everyone knows that the British and the Americans are tied at the hip when it comes to foreign policy and are natural allies for better or worse.

-----------------

Do you know there is a secutity classification class that is labeled "U.S./U.K. Only"

This is information that is ONLY to be shared or shown to the U.S. and U.K. governments ONLY. no one else.

[Radar501]

"Just the sort of comment one has come to expect from an American."

No, sorry. You haven't apparently read this thread, or any of many others.

It's normally the Americans who are being bashed and I'm tired of it. I actually have nothing against the Brits. I'm just always amazed at how quickly they bash Americans.

I honestly believe they are actually ashamed of the way the US has to protect them. They KNOW that if something breaks out with N. Korea or Iran or China or... They can live in the shadow of the US which is ready for it.

Military spending by country. How do you like "them wieners?":

Your patriotic ramblings are most likely the result of a narrow, insular American education. I don't hold you responsible for that.

Try reasoning with a brain-washed Muslim extremist who can justify the slaughter of children in the name of Allah.

I won't try with you.

[watcharacters]

are you privy to whatever information may have lead up to these precautions?

I didn't think so.

"Living in fear, or live with fear.

The big difference can be seen here.

I could not help but notice the large number of armed guards around the heavy fortified US consulate in Chiang Mai Thailand. Armed guards at the gate and along every wall and corner, security cameras and what have you. The UK consulate near by in stark contrast has no armed guards (that we could see) or heavy defenses, just one or two very nice helpful Thai men who smile and rush to open the door for people.What does it say about the people? Some live in fear and some learn to live with the fear."

Do you mean Americas policy of making friends around the world? Is this the way you get rewarded? Maybe it's time to review your foreign policies.

.

You are a funny guy. A full blown "Sh.t for Brains" troll but nevertheless a funny guy.

[rattler]

are you privy to whatever information may have lead up to these precautions?

I didn't think so.

"Living in fear, or live with fear.

The big difference can be seen here.

I could not help but notice the large number of armed guards around the heavy fortified US consulate in Chiang Mai Thailand. Armed guards at the gate and along every wall and corner, security cameras and what have you. The UK consulate near by in stark contrast has no armed guards (that we could see) or heavy defenses, just one or two very nice helpful Thai men who smile and rush to open the door for people.What does it say about the people? Some live in fear and some learn to live with the fear."

Do you mean Americas policy of making friends around the world? Is this the way you get rewarded? Maybe it's time to review your foreign policies.

OK, can we make that retroactive too? I wish that the US had stayed home during WWII. NONE of that war happened on US soil. Hawaii wasn't a state yet. In every single case the US went after the bat shit crazies just because they needed killing for the sake of what we thought were our friends. Big mistake.

If the US had stayed on its own soil and out of that war instead of caving to Churchill's constant begging, 418,000 brave Americans wouldn't have died, and in exchange all of Western Europe would be doing the fkn goose step today.

I'd like to watch that fkn parade of clumsy ingrates myself.

Yes I would.

Ah u mean like an Ostrich eh?

[NeverSure]

"Just the sort of comment one has come to expect from an American."

No, sorry. You haven't apparently read this thread, or any of many others.

It's normally the Americans who are being bashed and I'm tired of it. I actually have nothing against the Brits. I'm just always amazed at how quickly they bash Americans.

I honestly believe they are actually ashamed of the way the US has to protect them. They KNOW that if something breaks out with N. Korea or Iran or China or... They can live in the shadow of the US which is ready for it.

Military spending by country. How do you like "them wieners?":

Your patriotic ramblings are most likely the result of a narrow, insular American education. I don't hold you responsible for that.

Try reasoning with a brain-washed Muslim extremist who can justify the slaughter of children in the name of Allah.

I won't try with you.

We don't reason with them. We try to kill them everywhere we find them.

Now read the thread.

[NeverSure]

are you privy to whatever information may have lead up to these precautions?

I didn't think so.

"Living in fear, or live with fear.

The big difference can be seen here.

I could not help but notice the large number of armed guards around the heavy fortified US consulate in Chiang Mai Thailand. Armed guards at the gate and along every wall and corner, security cameras and what have you. The UK consulate near by in stark contrast has no armed guards (that we could see) or heavy defenses, just one or two very nice helpful Thai men who smile and rush to open the door for people.What does it say about the people? Some live in fear and some learn to live with the fear."

Do you mean Americas policy of making friends around the world? Is this the way you get rewarded? Maybe it's time to review your foreign policies.

OK, can we make that retroactive too? I wish that the US had stayed home during WWII. NONE of that war happened on US soil. Hawaii wasn't a state yet. In every single case the US went after the bat shit crazies just because they needed killing for the sake of what we thought were our friends. Big mistake.

If the US had stayed on its own soil and out of that war instead of caving to Churchill's constant begging, 418,000 brave Americans wouldn't have died, and in exchange all of Western Europe would be doing the fkn goose step today.

I'd like to watch that fkn parade of clumsy ingrates myself.

Yes I would.

Ah u mean like an Ostrich eh?

Maybe like Switzerland, who stayed neutral and came out smelling like a rose. Of course others did the fighting for them, but the US could have stayed home.

[chiangmaikelly]

Do you mean Americas policy of making friends around the world? Is this the way you get rewarded? Maybe it's time to review your foreign policies.

OK, can we make that retroactive too? I wish that the US had stayed home during WWII. NONE of that war happened on US soil. Hawaii wasn't a state yet. In every single case the US went after the bat shit crazies just because they needed killing for the sake of what we thought were our friends. Big mistake.

If the US had stayed on its own soil and out of that war instead of caving to Churchill's constant begging, 418,000 brave Americans wouldn't have died, and in exchange all of Western Europe would be doing the fkn goose step today.

I'd like to watch that fkn parade of clumsy ingrates myself.

Yes I would.

Ah u mean like an Ostrich eh?

Maybe like Switzerland, who stayed neutral and came out smelling like a rose. Of course others did the fighting for them, but the US could have stayed home.

I'm sure there are but I have never met a dumb guy from Switzerland.