jon46

The US ended its presence in Vietnam when US Congress withdrew "funding" causing the US to cease military support to South Vietnam.

Interesting story here in the state was regarding Joan Rivers who went to an outpatient office for a routine endoscopic procedure accompanied by her own doctors who decided to do a dangerous biopsis that resulted in air being cut off from lung. She was transported to a nearby hospital where she died some days later.

While the girls in Thermae might prefer Japanese because of their willing to pay more and are easy to service, they will take other customers if the price is right. The times that I was there, I have not seem them turn down paying customers, irregardless of race

Stephen M. Walt Professor of International Affairs, Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government AIPAC Is the Only Explanation for America's Morally Bankrupt Israel Policy Posted: 07/22/2014 1:59 pm The official name for Israel's latest assault on Gaza is "Operation Protective Edge." A better name would be "Operation Déjà Vu." As it has on several prior occasions, Israel is using weapons provided by U.S. taxpayers to bombard the captive and impoverished Palestinians in Gaza, where the death toll now exceeds 500. As usual, the U.S. government is siding with Israel, even though most American leaders understand Israel instigated the latest round of violence, is not acting with restraint, and that its actions make Washington look callous and hypocritical in the eyes of most of the world. This Orwellian situation is eloquent testimony to the continued political clout of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the other hardline elements of the Israel lobby. There is no other plausible explanation for the supine behavior of the U.S. Congress--including some of its most "progressive" members--or the shallow hypocrisy of the Obama administration, especially those officials known for their purported commitment to human rights. The immediate cause of this latest one-sided bloodletting was the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli hikers in the occupied West Bank, followed shortly thereafter by the kidnapping and fatal burning of a Palestinian teenager by several Israelis. According to J.J. Goldberg's reporting in the Jewish newspaper Forward, the Netanyahu government blamed Hamas for the kidnappings without evidence and pretended the kidnapped Israelis were still alive for several weeks, even though there was evidence indicating the victims were already dead. It perpetrated this deception in order to whip up anti-Arab sentiment and make it easier to justify punitive operations in the West Bank and Gaza. And why did Netanyahu decide to go on another rampage in Gaza? As Nathan Thrall of the International Crisis Group points out, the real motive is neither vengeance nor a desire to protect Israel from Hamas' rocket fire, which has been virtually non-existent over the past two years and is largely ineffectual anyway. Netanyahu's real purpose was to undermine the recent agreement between Hamas and Fatah for a unity government. Given Netanyahu's personal commitment to keeping the West Bank and creating a "greater Israel," the last thing he wants is a unified Palestinian leadership that might press him to get serious about a two-state solution. Ergo, he sought to isolate and severely damage Hamas and drive a new wedge between the two Palestinian factions. Behind all these maneuvers looms Israel's occupation of Palestine, now in its fifth decade. Not content with having ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 and not satisfied with owning eighty-two percent of Mandatory Palestine, every Israeli government since 1967 has built or expanded settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem while providing generous subsidies to the 600,000-plus Jews who have moved there in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Two weeks ago, Netanyahu confirmed what many have long suspected: he is dead set against a two-state solution and will never--repeat never--allow it to happen while he is in office. Given that Netanyahu is probably the most moderate member of his own Cabinet and that Israel's political system is marching steadily rightward, the two-state solution is a gone goose. Worst of all, the deaths of hundreds more Palestinians and a small number of Israelis will change almost nothing. Hamas is not going to disband. When this latest round of fighting ends, the 4.4 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza will still be Israel's de facto prisoners and still be denied basic human rights. But they are not going to leave, mainly because Palestine is their homeland, but also because they have nowhere to go, especially given the turmoil in other parts of the Middle East. Eventually another ceasefire will be negotiated. The dead will be buried, the wounded will recover, the tunnels now being destroyed will be rebuilt, and Hamas will replenish its stockpile of missiles and rockets. The stage will then be set for another round of fighting, and Israel will have moved further down the road to becoming a full-fledged apartheid state. Meanwhile, U.S. politicians and policymakers continue to back a brutal military campaign whose primary purpose is not to defend Israel but rather to protect its longstanding effort to colonize the West Bank. Amazingly, they continue to support Israel unreservedly even though every U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson has opposed Israel's settlements project, and the past three American presidents--Clinton, Bush and Obama--have all worked hard for the two-state solution that Israeli policy has now made impossible. "The explanation for America's impotent and morally bankrupt policy is the political clout of the Israel lobby." Yet as soon as fighting starts, and even if Israel instigates it, AIPAC demands that Washington march in lockstep with Tel Aviv. Congress invariably rushes to pass new resolutions endorsing whatever Israel decides to do. Even though it is mostly Palestinians who are dying, White House officials rush to proclaim that Israel has "the right to defend itself," and Obama himself won't go beyond expressing "concern" about what is happening. Of course Israelis have the right to defend themselves, but Palestinians not only have the same right, they have the right to resist the occupation. To put this another way, Israel does not have the right to keep its Palestinian subjects in permanent subjugation. But try finding someone on Capitol Hill who will acknowledge this simple fact. The explanation for America's impotent and morally bankrupt policy is the political clout of the Israel lobby. Barack Obama knows that if he were to side with the Palestinians in Gaza or criticize Israel's actions in any way, he would face a firestorm of criticism from the lobby and his chances of getting Congressional approval for a deal with Iran would evaporate. Similarly, every member of the House and Senate--including progressives like Senator Elizabeth Warren--knows that voting for those supposedly "pro-Israel" resolutions is the smart political move. They understand that even the slightest display of independent thinking on these issues could leave them vulnerable to a well-funded opponent the next time they're up for re-election. At a minimum, they'll have to answer a flood of angry phone calls and letters, and, on top of that, they are likely to be blackballed by some of their Congressional colleagues. The safer course is to mouth the same tired litanies about alleged "shared values" between Israel and the U.S. and wait till the crisis dies down. And people wonder why no one respects Congress anymore. To be sure, the lobby's clout is not as profound as it once was. Public discourse about Israel, U.S. policy toward Israel and the lobby itself has changed markedly in recent years, and a growing number of journalists, bloggers and pundits--such as Andrew Sullivan, Juan Cole, Peter Beinart, M.J. Rosenberg, Max Blumenthal, Phyllis Bennis, Bernard Avishai, Sara Roy, Mitchell Plitnick, David Remnick, Phil Weiss and even (occasionally) Thomas Friedman of the New York Times--are willing to speak and write candidly about what is happening in the Middle East. Although most Americans openly support Israel's existence--just as I do--their sympathy for an Israel that acts more like Goliath than David is fading. The ranks of the skeptics include a growing number of younger American Jews, who find little to admire and much to dislike in Israel's actions and who are far less devoted to it than were previous generations. Pro-peace groups such as J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace reflect that trend and show that opinion among American Jews is far from unified. "The lobby is still able to keep roughly $3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel flowing each year; it can still prevent U.S. presidents from putting meaningful pressure on Israel; and it can still get the U.S. to wield its veto whenever a resolution criticizing Israel's actions is floated in the U.N. Security Council." Moreover, AIPAC and other hardline lobby groups could not convince the Obama administration to intervene in Syria, and they have been unable to convince the Bush or Obama administrations to launch a preventive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. They have also failed to derail the nuclear negotiations with Tehran--at least so far--though not for lack of trying. Pushing the U.S. toward another Middle East war is a lot for any interest group to accomplish, of course, but these setbacks show that even this "leviathan among lobbies" does not always get its way. But the lobby is still able to keep roughly $3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel flowing each year; it can still prevent U.S. presidents from putting meaningful pressure on Israel; and it can still get the U.S. to wield its veto whenever a resolution criticizing Israel's actions is floated in the U.N. Security Council. This situation explains why the Obama administration made zero progress toward "two states for two peoples": if Israel gets generous U.S. support no matter what it does, why should its leaders pay any attention to Washington's requests? Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry could only appeal to Netanyahu's better judgment, and we've seen how well that worked. This situation is a tragedy for all concerned, not least for Israel itself. A Greater Israel cannot be anything but an apartheid state, and exclusionary ethnic nationalism of this sort is not sustainable in the 21st century. Israel's Arab subjects will eventually demand equal rights, and as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned back in 2007, once that happens, "the state of Israel is finished." Unfortunately, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and assorted Christian Zionist groups continue to exhibit a severe case of tunnel vision. Because defending Israel no matter what it does is their main raison d'etre (and central to their fundraising), they are unable to see that they are helping Israel drive itself off a cliff. Similarly, those pliant members of Congress who cravenly sign AIPAC-drafted resolutions are not true friends of Israel. They are false friends who pretend to care but are really only interested in getting reelected. Historians will one day look back and ask how U.S. Middle East policy could be so ineffectual and so at odds with its professed values -- not to mention its strategic interests. The answer lies in the basic nature of the American political system, which permits well-organized and well-funded special interest groups to wield significant power on Capitol Hill and in the White House. In this case, the result is a policy that is bad for all concerned: for the Palestinians most of all, but also for the U.S. and Israel as well. Until the lobby's clout is weakened or politicians grow stiffer spines, Americans looking for better outcomes in the Middle East had better get used to disappointment and prepared for more trouble.

Once again, the loss of lives (over 1,000 vs. less than 40) and the destruction on one side vs. minor damage on the other speak volumes! The people in Gaza can not leave as the borders are sealed by Israel and Egypt! Haven't Israel learned anything from previous campaigns that this type of warfare give rise to more extremists and more future violence. It won't be too long when rockets will hit Ben Gurion airport. What will Israel do then? Bomb and turn Gaza to rubble?

Remember Kloster beer? No more when Heineken became available. Many years ago, I was in a Cebu nightclub and got drunk drinking 6-7 beers for the cost of less than $1.50....Gee! Yes, beer during Happy Hour at Patpong was cheap (or at least reasonable) in the early 80s.

I still think back to the 1996-1997 when the baht was as low as low as 50 to the US $1. During that period, the baht was in the 40 to $1 range! Those were the good old days, especially to this visitor from the states!

yes, US is a debtor country but you wouldn't know it from their military spending. I think that US should treat Russia and China not as advisories but seek their co-operation in areas where there is mutual benefit. Certainly, US foreign policy on Ukraine favoring its tilt towards the West resulted in the loss of Crimea but you wouldn't know it from the government's spin. Economic sanctions caused Russia to back down from eastern Ukraine. Regarding China, Obama's pivot to Asia also resulted in establishing a new military base in Australia. But from that location, I am not sure if China feels threathened. Also, bringing charging against Chinese military personnel for hacking is a novel idea versus charging China or its military of hacking.

News reports from the US state that hotel occupancy is now at 20%!

With recent events which resulted in Yingluck forced to step down along with her ministers, do you think there will be stepped up demostrations and violence in the coming days/weeks? And if so, do you think the military will step in?

hey, on a similiar topic, I recall going to patpong and seeing ameri-asians girls dancers, one was obviously from a black father. We don't see this anymore or even Russian dancers back in the day when the Soviet Union broke up. Yes, you see lots of Russians in Pattaya nowadays.

I recall someone in a red dress with very high heels....kinda of cute in an odd sort of way....lol

When I see the prices you quoted, it seem like it was ancient history but of course while a long time ago but not that long ago. while I have not been back to Bangkok in a couple of years, street food is still relatively cheap at25-30 baht for a bowl of noodles, haircut and a shave for 60 or so baht, taxis are still inexpensive compared to the states. 3 stars hotels in Bangkok are 1,200 baht ++ and housing is still much less than the states. a cup of starbucks coffee here in the states costs just under $2 but their "reserve" coffee is twice that amount. I think Starbucks in Bangkok is just as high.

My work colleague got posted to Bangkok as an expat in 1984. Those days, Thailand was classified as a hardship country so his allowance was more than normal. His lived in a 3 bedroom apt on Sukhumvit soi 34 or 43 (can't remember the exact street). He even had custom furnature made, sofa with silk from Jim Thompson, Persian carpet, etc. He lived like a king for 2 years. I even visited him during this period. I know a number of expat who got posted to Asia and they come back with their custom suits and shirts and very jaded. Here in the states, unless you are a CEO or a very senior executive of a major company, you are just a normal person. I have also stayed at the Regent and Erawan where I met the current chairman of Bangkok Bank. But the grounds of these places can't be compared to Siam InterCont. While I may be older today, I still get around. You can see me nowadays either at Lumpini Park or by the railroad station at night looking for "ladies of the evening" LOL.

my first visit to Bangkok was in 1979 on business. I stayed at the InterContinental with its magnificent grounds. I recalled one day I was by the swimming pool when a bellboy in a white uniform weaning a cap walked by holding a white message board with my name. He had a message for me. It was a scene out of an old movie. I was taken to a massage place and experience for the very first time, a body massage, lying wet on a mat with the girl rubbing her body against me. The girl said after looking at my aroused state that I was ready and wanted "hi roi" for sex. Apparently, my host paid for the massage but not for the other activity. I was given a local driver and felt like a king. One evening, I was invited to dine at the famous "No Hands" restaurant where the host picked his usual girl who I felt was the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. She was extremely popular, going from room to room entertaining. I ended up taking my girl back to my hotel at the InterContinnental where a good time was had by all. To this day, I regret not giving the girl money. I was an inexperienced American not used to paying. Days later, when I tried to check out, I saw my bill a charge for a hotel guess which complained by speaking to the hotel manager who agreed to take off the charge. Those were the days!

The Big Boss was produced by Raymond Chow of Golden Harvest. I believe he used to work for Run Run Shaw before going out on his own to form Golden Harvest. I believe Raymond Chow is still alive but Run Run Shaw died early this year at 107 years old. Gee! I wonder what it was like in Bangkok way then. Long time can be had probably for under 400 baht. Pattaya was a back water village and probably the US Navy hadn't discovered it yet from the Vietnam war days.

Let me sum up that Malarin Boonnak played... The factory owner makes Bruce Lee the foreman, providing him with alcohol and prostitutes. One of the prostitutes,named Sun played by Malarin Boonnak had sex with Bruce Lee and appeared in a scene with Bruce Lee "topless" where she was later killed with a knife by the factory owner's son.

I want to mention Malarin Boonnak. She appeared in "The Big Boss", Bruce Lee's first movie. She appeared in one scene "topless as a prostitute working in a brothel. She was pretty hot looking.

I checked the list and am glad to report that I do not drink any of the beers. These days I am into craft beer...Duvel and Chimay reserve are among my fave

I feel uncomfortable with the current drone policy of the Obama administration...that of killing Americans overseas without due process in addition to the news reporting an American base in Niger for drones. I do not like the idea that there is no oversight over the authorization to kill overseas American except to say it rest with the White House. Just because the White House says a person is a terrorist doesn't make it so. Pls refer to George W. Bush stating that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions and the ensuing invasion of Iraq that led to US spending hundreds of billions and finding no weapons of mass destructions. I find it ironic in that at the outsight of Obama's first term, the Nobel committee awarded Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize.