Forum

paulh50, you react like a mother who cannot accept that her son is not the good person she believes he is.She blames society, teachers, LE and declares facts being lies.
The feelings of a mother are the reasons for her reaction. The reason for your reaction are obviously your chauvinistic education and life experiences. You defame and talk about lies, but you avoid a discussion. Doing this you sell your ideas and trials of an explanation as facts. I am sorry, but your "child" is not a good one in many ways.
A "computer-games-generation" growing up watching movies which glorify violence holds dangerous and powerful weapons in its hands...
No style and no behaviour! If it is not their way then it is a bad way...
If you want to know about me, then feel free to ask, but do not spread your assumptions.

A very good and very justified question!
A reply certainly depends on the related local judiciary.

In my opinion from a general point of view reviews must be seen risky for a provider, not necessarily as a cardinal evidence but as a supplementary one (in combination with an evident payment).
What do you think, how does a normal personal evaluate assessments about "Pussy Size" and sexual skills forwarded by different clients? - Reviews for a tour guide?

As mentioned already, it depends on your country. There are countries where advertising on a website like this is enough for being classified as a prostitute, but where law is not enforced for 'political' reasons and there are countries where the burden of evidence is more complex and difficult.

Well, let me simply ask you what does winning a war mean, nowadays?
Raping the enemies' women, enslave the population, steal the treasure and destroy the castles, go home and everything will be fine?
I think we agree that such a philosophy is not up to date any more. :)

It would be a nonsensical discussion if small and weak countries could or can compete the military superpower USA. They cannot!
From a soldier's point of view countries like Vietnam, Iraq, and the Taliban in Afghanistan are not serious opponents in a military conflict. These conflicts are more than pure military conflicts.

But being in war is much more difficult for countries of the so called "Free World" than it is for a totalitarian regime.
Persons, citizens who are free have access to informations. They have learnt to have an own opinion which is not the opinion of a teacher, father or a propagandistic opinion maker.
This point is not a disadvantage but the controlling privilege of freedom which does not make being in war easy.

During the war in Vietnam the US policy-makers lost credibility at home. Consequently they had to leave Vietnam.

Especially during the passed 20 years the case has been less or more equal and more international. Ethic and moral credibility and reliability was seen decreasing and power political, nearly imperialistic, interests have increased. US policy-makers more and more suffer from a bad reputation abroad. They are seen being extremely influenced by business interests and a double standard morality. Being diplomatic does not mean being arrogant and characterless.

Paulh50,
thank you for your comments about the US engagement in Vietnam. It is interesting reading from you although I must say that your attitude certainly is not a generally accepted one.
I agree with you that the USA never lost the Vietnam war. But my bias for stating this is a Chinese one based on which I disagree with you in many points.

US helicopters taking off from the roof of an apartment building near the US embassy in Saigon is a less or more a powerful image of defeated US Americans getting out just before the Vietnamese they fought against took over the city from the from the South Vietnamese they supported. An image which does not not stand for a winning party.

I have learnt - and agree to what I have learnt - that after the war in Vietnam US policy-makers have secured a huge propaganda victory in shaping perceptions about that war and, paradoxically, one of the propaganda achievements has been convincing people that they lost. The reason for the seemingly strange strategy is simple: Putting forward the idea that they lost obscures both the real reason they fought the war diverts attention from US crimes during the war.

Despite the claims of US leaders, they did not fight in Vietnam to establish democracy. Instead, they fought in Vietnam to derail democracy. After the Vietnamese defeat of French colonialism in 1954, the Geneva Conference called for free elections in 1954. But the United States and its client regime in South Vietnam blocked those elections. Why? In his memoirs, US President Eisenhower explained honestly: In free elections, the socialist government of Ho Chi Min would have won by an overwhelming margin. As is typical, the USA is all for elections in other countries, if they turn out the way they want.

The central goal of US policy-makers in Vietnam was to make sure that an independent socialist course of development did not succeed. US leaders relied on Cold War rhetoric about the communist monolith but really feared that a virus of such independent development could infect the rest of Asia, perhaps even becoming a model for all the Third World. What might happen if all nations emerging from colonialism believed they had a right to decide their own futures, outside the US orbit?

It is much easier to obscure these US war aims if we talk about how they lost the war, leading to the fall of a South Vietnamese democracy that never existed. It also is easier to obscure the brutality of the US war.

So long as persons believe that they lost the war, the question can be asked, if they had fought harder, could they have won? Some Americans still talk about how they fought the Vietnam War with one hand tied behind their back, - yet with only one hand they managed to drop 6.5 million tons of bombs and 400,000 tons of napalm on the people of South-East Asia. Short of nuclear weapons, it is not clear what additional forms of violence they could have unleashed on the people of Vietnam.

If people can convince themselves that they were restrained gentlemen during the war, it is easier to ignore the saturation bombing of civilian areas, counter-terrorism programs that included political assassination, routine killings of civilians, and 11.2 million of gallons of Agent Orange to destroy crops and ground cover, - all part of the US terror war in not only Vietnam but Laos and Cambodia as well. All those are clear violations of international law, - that is, war crimes.

Thirty-five years later, the virus US policy-makers feared has been largely stamped out, with only a few stubborn holdouts. South-East Asia, - indeed, most of the Third World-, is safe not only for the US style democracy (that is, democracy with results favourable to the United States) but for multinational corporations to take advantage of the resources and exploit the labour.

By telling the story that they lost the war, the United States can continue to evade the truth about its foreign policy. While it is true that they did not achieve total conquest of South Vietnam, 35 years later the nature of the US victory is clear. Vietnam, still recovering from the massive destruction caused by the United States attack, is forced to accept - by economic pressure not bombs - its place in the international economic order run out of Washington and New York.

The information board on the picture below can be found beside a big motorway in Bangkok.
It shows a picture of prime minister Abhisit and the text:
"If you find an inappropriate website then call 1212."

The witch-hunt seems to be open for everybody.

What makes a website inappropriate?
Does it refer to Computer Crime Act of 2007 (2550)?

We may be curious how long it takes this regime to convince the people that the heads of the demonstrators jumped against the bullets that were actually shot in the air.

Soo, may be you have some good news to tell?
I would like to know.
The only stupid gossip I can find in this thread up to now is some general propaganda about the Redsirts and a typical persecution complex with regards to critical news which are not welcome for some person(s).
What an argument is this, do not discuss problems unless you can solve them!?

Are critical - in your words bad - news wrong news?