justSumGai

tomyummer, on 2010-09-30 14:15:02, said:

The dams built in China deal with the flow of the Mekong in China. Even without dams the amount of water reaching Laos is far less than the amount leaving Laos / Thailand. Around 40% additional water is added by the tributaries in these two countries. It is not just a mass of water from Tibet flowing all the way through to Ca Mau. It is innumerable tributaries along the length of the Mekong that contribute to the overall flow.

Dams will control the flow, as well as providing electric power. Store up water in the monsoon periods, let it out in the drier times, thus making far more of the water useable for agriculture and other purposes. The main river should not be dammed - just the tributaries. This will provide manageable sources of renewable energy - something that environmentalists keep bleating about. But when it's offered they find something else to complain about.

Not to dam these tributaries could leave the area in the same condition as Pakistan, these past couple of months. Would you all prefer that?

We are way beyond irreversible, in the sense that the big countries are in 5th gear, and going downhill, with a wind at their back, with regards to getting what they want by any means necessary to the survival of their governments and the ones they are sworn to protect. I refer to the silent war over energy resources, natural selection being over-euphamized as being "civility", and the haves and have nots.

I understand the faux "show of concern" by the hypocritical agencies. What  I do not understand is that the driving force behind this story (i.e. The War over Natural Resources) is not being addressed as a possible real motive for this concern. Terrorism and Earth worship are being used as a means to limit what weaker nations can and can not do regarding utilization of the precious resources their countries contain. Until they are invaded, they can not damage the Earth (hence this article). When they are invaded - because they might be thinking about something that will affect the national security of a country 12000 miles away - their resources will be raped and sold to the highest bidder.

Why should Laos be scrutinized and villified when compared to, say, China, and its Three Gorges Dam project? Where were these hypocritical bums when that project was going up? The transboundary effects that this massive project is already having on all downstream countries should not be overlooked. The country at the end of the river is going to scream the most, and the self-imposed big brother countries (the protectors of the realm) are going to support them, but only as a means to get their energy-resource-sniffing noses into other people's business, and ignore the real issue; improving the way of life for millions of humans living in squalor.

This seems to be another case of picking on the little guy (simply because they can be picked on with impunity) by turning a well-intentioned project into a long, drawn-out headache. 'Problem is; the pickers are way out there in the guilt department in their deceitful and murderous methods for getting natural resources by land-raping other countries they invade. They are too cowardly to admit that this stupid "extensive debate" is nothing more than a way for the energy hungry nations to get their fingers in on the Laos project and divvy up who gets what and how much, regarding financial profit. Laos would more than likely get the crunbs off the table. Seems the little countries who disagree with the big countries get to be labeled as despots and terrorists. Funny, that.

It's not about care for the environment, carbon footprints, and mother Gaia. That is simply  a religion that is being propagated as an excuse to push the expendable people to the outer edges of receiving aid, and fend for themselves as best as possible, until the bigger nations decide how to deal with them.

It is not about caring for people living in squalor. It is plausable that these people have already been slated as collateral damage for the one world government, so why bother until that time? Why try to fis something that is going to be done away with in the future anyways? Can anyone say Pandemic?

It is about "Mommy, he's got more ice-cream than me. Not fair!" Let's keep the ice cream in the freezer until the most powerful have their say, and get their portion agreed upon and secured.

Looks like China can be counted as one of those who gets to eat ice cream, and even get their monstrosity lauded as a wonder of the world.

Laos should consider themselves fortunate not to have a lake of oil under their land! I believe this story, and many like it, points to a trend that will some day place the human being as the most expendable and cheapest (to the truest sense of this word) form of energy in existence. We are headed in that direction. The old saying, "Be a hero, save a whale; Save a baby, go to Jail" isn't far off the point. The apathy over human traffiking supports my view on letting it go until it can be dealt with in a fashion that the more fortunate can rationalize and sleep peacefully at nights.

'Just another opinion, but not as stupid as this charade of a story.

I never stop wondering how humans will do anything in their power to destroy this world. This is greed, egoism and incompetence on the highest level.

Oh finally a good news! i was so concerned about going out at night time (but even during the day for that matter), knowing that i might eventually came across one of the very feared "overstayers" , i can cope with almost any sort of issues or dangers, but having to deal with a man/woman which is not a "quality tourist" is already bad enough, leave alone someone which break this vital law! is just too much, nevermind the killers, scammers, abusers,cheaters,thiefs around us, the constant chronic break of safety standards and human rights, etc.., go and get the overstayers that's the real crime in this country, the main priority for the resolution of all major problems affecting the country for sure,  thank you amazing Thailand!

Renbe, on 2010-09-22 02:36:17, said:

And I bet you drive a car. Haven't you noticed they stink and maybe you ain't heard they kill millions every year.

Rumor has it they also contribute to global warming, but the self-righteous drivers feel free to slag off smokers. Why?

Pots, kettles, and black springs to mind.

nisakiman, on 2010-09-22 02:13:34, said:

Zealots my cute little hiney, it is about time that this filthy habit is banned from public space. If you want to poison the place, do it in your own house...

Any farang that is so stupid to smoke, deserves to be fined the max amount

Another step in the right direction. Smoking should be banned from all public places, it is a filthy and disgusting habbit

tigerfish, on 2010-09-16 16:12:29, said:

The  three of you And also to HuaHinFool;

The whole point isnt about family being family and that it is ok to borrow money from family only because they are family. Then you have a narrow and easy view of life and are probably going to hustle  anyone for some cash on your way through life.

This is about the finacial status of the people you are borrowing from and what social system they live in. Look at all of you, potless and with no money. You were not able to make it in farang land and make some cash there. Why should anyone belive you could make some cash here? You have all failed in life in terms of gaining assets or save money to spend on a business for yourself. Most likely because you are not business orientated and also do not have the best control over personal expenses due over income.

  And here it comes, what if your business or your life in terms of economic fails again and this time on lent money from not wealthy but a poor old thai mother and father in law.That would be a great situation for all wouldnt it? These not wealthy farmers or up country people that worked all their life and saved some money, but  which you the white man couldnt do and now you re asking for their help. No, screw that, as I said, that is not cool.

Why did you not borrow money from your own family where you come from...Because no one wants to, because they know exactly how you are?
Why not borrow from friends where you come from that could live with aloss of some 200.000-500.000 baht... Because you dont have any that trusts you?
Why not through a financial institution in your home country or here... Because you dont have anything for that institution that would justify a loan from them.

Anyone going to live in another country and especially a country likeThailand should have the cash to make a sustainable life for themselves and their own money if they want to do some business and not ride on some old thai people to make it for them.

I am reading and one of you saying 160k in the bank and your wife cant touch it. If thats about all you ve got and and I would say your life is at a great risk. It takes you or any other from your beloved family only one motorbike crash and your hospital bills could double or triple that amount. I seriously hope that the reason for why you are so low on cash in your life is because you have the most expensive health insurrance covering for yourself and your whole family here. Otherwise you are running a huge risk of just being in this country.

You all remind me of the farangs that does not want to leave this country at any costs. Take what it takes and just hold on to being here no matter what. Shame on you. What you are doing is not cool and you are all running  a much greater risk on a thai family than you should.

tigerfish, on 2010-09-16 16:12:29, said:

Guys.. The 3 of you add to the list of the strangest things I for sure have seen here. I mean, you come as a foreigner to a developing country to leech onto your Thai girlfriends mother and father that are not wealthy. They have to pawn gold for you to make a living here and to buy some furniture. Thats not cool at all. If you re that potless and I seriously think you should have stayed home.

Hello all,

Perhaps by furthering their studies, the Bangkok government could improve Thai business by setting a standard price maximum markup for motorbike taxis and tuk tuks, which do not obviously have meters.

My best friend, who works in a Sukhumvit establishment each night has an arrangement with her tuk tuk driver, where she is picked up and delivered from Ratchada to Sukhumvit for an acute fee in comparison to what we pay.

Educating non-metered modes transportation either to charge the same prices accross the board to customers regardless of their nationality, or introducing a price maximum (per km), which a customer could use as a guideline to get an average fee would boost business for these people and show them that simply increasing prices on farang does not necessarily generate maximum efficiency.

Tackling the Mafia is a good idea, but when these types of ideoligy exists within a group, it will simply become less visible - instead of somone coming to collect each week in a big car, the person in the big car will ask for collections from the "head" driver, who then delivers through to Mr. Mercedes at the end of the day/week/month. Something like the Mafia woker who is the head "union member" running things on the construction site in Jersey..

Does anyone else share this view or have other concerns that this may not necessarily work?

Here's the real kicker of the article: the last sentence, and easily overlooked:

Quote:
"Rights and Liberties Protection Department deputy director-general Pasit Asavawattanaporn said holders of 1,005 insurance policies had complained that insurance companies declined to pay compensation of Bt198 billion sought for the damage from the unrest."

This was due to the labeling of the Red Shirt actions as: "Terrorism".

Unfortunately, all of these insurance policies excluded damages due to terrorism.

I'm NOT saying that the Red Shirt actions didn't amount to "terrorism" but the reality is that the government came up with this word, part way through the "occupation" (my term). I'm sure they just wanted to use a powerful word to describe what was happening, as they saw it,

But I'm equally SURE that whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" NEVER for a second stopped to consider that this single word would invalidate over 1000 insurance policies... costing the business owners... TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!!!

This figure dwarfs ALL of the other loss figures, referred to, in this Nation article.

(As an aside, I think it's so odd how the Nation writers "compose" [and I use that term loosely] the articles they "write"!?!?... It seems so often like a shotgun organization to their articles... often hiding or concealing important pertinent details... such as...perhaps the most significant financial loss to this whole sorry affair,  in the final paragraph, where many people would have stopped reading by then... What's with THAT? {end rant})

IMHO, I think it's pretty likely that the government will end up having to foot the bill for this 200 Billion Baht loss.

One simple word... ONE WORD(!) costing 200 Billion Baht.

I'm pretty sure we're allowed to quote Wikipedia here? I thought it might be interesting to see Wiki's current definition of Terrorism: Interesting stuff! Note the sentences in bold:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.^[1] At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.^[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).^{[citation needed]}

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. ^[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.^[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,^[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.^[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,^[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).^[8][9]

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.^[10] One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.^[11]


Amazing Thailand; LOS; Land of Losses

justSumGai, on 2010-08-27 10:21:55, said:

Maybe not a genuis, but I'm not the one with my panties in a wad because I can't organize my trip around existing visa regulations. At any rate, visa exempt entries, as well as Tourist visas are free and easy to obtain. but if you decide to give Thailand a pass, I'm sure they'll manage.

By the way, there is no 90 in 180 day rule anymore that went away early December, 2008, and just to clarify for others that never affected entries with visas. Again it's helpful to do a little research.

animatic, on 2010-08-24 11:18:10, said:

High speed bullets are constructed so that they crumble on impact leaving only fragments that causes more damage.

animatic, on 2010-08-24 11:18:10, said:

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Not much an autopsy can tell you beyond likely type of bullet, if there is not bullet to examine.

High speed bullets usually pass right through, so nothing but angle and deflection and size info can be inferred.
No gun, no bullet no ballistics comparison, and that's forensics and not an autopsy.
At the likely distances trace of charge composition would likely be negligible.

The lack of info has nothing to do with DSI or CRESS trying to hide anything,
but more with the logic of the situation of each individual shooting.