Abc123 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:42 pm

John Bingham wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:43 pm

Abc123 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:36 pm

John Bingham wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:00 pm No, because they don't owe any back taxes. They were always way ahead of the Daily when it came to accountability.
On a side-note - Bernard Krisher, later of the Cambodia Daily, wrote an inaccurate article in 1965 or so naming the Queen Mother Kossamak as a brothel and opium den owner. It turned out she only owned the land that these independent businesses were on. The article caused such a fuss that there were riots in Phnom Penh and the US and British embassies were ransacked.

More spurious rubbish.

You don't know what you're talking about:

Bernard Krisher- Newsweek April 5 1965

And Laos receives plenty of foreign aid, here's just one graph:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/675 ... tion-laos/

Over the years, Japan, Australia and Germany as well as multilateral institutions such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and International Development Association (IDA) in the World Bank
(WB) Group have been Laos’ top donors /creditors .Recently, however, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Thailand have ranked among major donors and creditors.

https://www.sombath.org/wp-content/uplo ... -Watch.pdf

Are you seriously trying to mislead readers into thinking falsehoods again. Laos foreign investment by OECD countries was severely affected by the reemergence of Chinese rule in the 70's, and it never had the billions UNTAC spent on Cambodia. The link you supplied is defunct as well. It's to a $50 p y pay site.

Here's a list of US aid for the years 1960 and 2015 for Laos, Cambodia and others.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD

They receive about half what Cambodia receives. It has never had billions of western tax payers money spent on stopping a civil war and bringing in a democracy.
The idea that Krisher alone caused riots at the US embassy is laughable to say the least. Even the author of your so called evidence, says ostensibly. Do you know what that word means?

John Bingham wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:08 am

Abc123 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:42 pm

John Bingham wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:43 pm

Abc123 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:36 pm

John Bingham wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:00 pm No, because they don't owe any back taxes. They were always way ahead of the Daily when it came to accountability.
On a side-note - Bernard Krisher, later of the Cambodia Daily, wrote an inaccurate article in 1965 or so naming the Queen Mother Kossamak as a brothel and opium den owner. It turned out she only owned the land that these independent businesses were on. The article caused such a fuss that there were riots in Phnom Penh and the US and British embassies were ransacked.

More spurious rubbish.

You don't know what you're talking about:

Bernard Krisher- Newsweek April 5 1965

And Laos receives plenty of foreign aid, here's just one graph:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/675 ... tion-laos/

Over the years, Japan, Australia and Germany as well as multilateral institutions such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and International Development Association (IDA) in the World Bank
(WB) Group have been Laos’ top donors /creditors .Recently, however, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Thailand have ranked among major donors and creditors.

https://www.sombath.org/wp-content/uplo ... -Watch.pdf

Are you seriously trying to mislead readers into thinking falsehoods again. Laos foreign investment by OECD countries was severely affected by the reemergence of Chinese rule in the 70's, and it never had the billions UNTAC spent on Cambodia. The link you supplied is defunct as well. It's to a $50 p y pay site.

Here's a list of US aid for the years 1960 and 2015 for Laos, Cambodia and others.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD

They receive about half what Cambodia receives. It has never had billions of western tax payers money spent on stopping a civil war and bringing in a democracy.
The idea that Krisher alone caused riots at the US embassy is laughable to say the least. Even the author of your so called evidence, says ostensibly. Do you know what that word means?

Laos has less than half the population than this country does, and has had no major conflicts since 1975 - so it follows that it receives less aid than Cambodia.Your ideas about Chinese rule in Laos are laughable. Chinese influence in Laos waned in the 70s and the country was afterwards in the opposing Viet/ Soviet sphere until at least 1989. Bernard Krisher's role in the break-down of US-Cambodia relations was documented by many sources, including Kenton Clymer's "United States and Cambodia, 1870-1969". I never said his article was the only cause, but it was certainly one of the catalysts.

pczz wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:22 pm ...we will never get to discuss anything other than why CEO spell checker uses American spellings...

taabarang wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:30 pm OK Frank, now that I'm rid of the poster who was trying to bust my balls, what exactly is a "fes?"

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:46 pm

pczz wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:22 pm ...we will never get to discuss anything other than why CEO spell checker uses American spellings...

For the technically un-astute, the browser you are using makes the little wavy lines, not the website. Go into settings or options, look for languages or spell checker, tick the dictionary of your choice.
...
I'm sure HE is just a misunderstood, cuddly teddy bear and in no way is this country a kleptocracy.

pczz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:43 pm https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... ist/301139

I would have expected the negated form to be inastute - but that gets only 150 hits in Google Books, compared to 281 for unastute (neither word appears in the full OED, or any free online dictionaries, so far as I can see). – FumbleFingers Jan 20 '16 at 13:34

taabarang wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:59 pm

pczz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:43 pm https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... ist/301139

I would have expected the negated form to be inastute - but that gets only 150 hits in Google Books, compared to 281 for unastute (neither word appears in the full OED, or any free online dictionaries, so far as I can see). – FumbleFingers Jan 20 '16 at 13:34

this is a forum for people to express their views, not an English test. Criticize a point of view by all means but not how it is spelt or worded ..."

Make up your mind!