khunjamespittman

The Thai Government ought to consider asking for UN peacekeeping intervention before this gets really over everyone's heads and we see this 'protest' transform into a full-blown, nationwide civil war. Deploying impartial military peacekeepers (not observers) with clear rules of engagement would allow the Thai military a face-saving gesture as they are reluctant to kill and maim fellow Thais...despite the bullying provocations witnessed over the past few days at the hands of the rabid dog-like UDD goons. The zealots leading the UDD, controlled by their puppet master from abroad, started this entire mess and it is clear now to anyone that they intend to fight to the death for their misguided cause. It is simply astounding that any Thai citizen would actually want this outcome, but there it is, and plain to see now. If that ugly spectre is what now confronts this society, with internecine, class-driven warfare spreading across the width and breadth of Thailand, then perhaps the government needs to accommodate these fools...well-guided and assisted by external multinational assistance. This has quickly escalated way beyond the bounds of a protest. The megalomaniacal paymaster is throwing in all the cards now...and cares not one whit for his homeland or its beleaguered people. And those at his beck and call, giddy at prospect of huge wealth and political power, are willing to toss their nation down the drain as well to get a chance at that golden trough. I pray that a higher order in the heavens above will save these poor souls from themselves before it is too late. The abyss beckons...

You really believe that the UN could even agree on sending peacekeepers to Thailand in anything less than 9 months? Then another 3 months deciding who should pay fo rthem and which countries would send them etc etc etc. Thailand could have 3 election cycles before the UN got its act together.

I was heavily involved in UNPKO around the globe and know what I am suggesting; it need not take as long as you appear to believe.

I agree with Bangon04. Getting the UN involved in peacekeeping is a non-starter. Just finding countries to contribute to the force and getting agreement from both sides in Thailand would take months, probably over a year. Then they have to figure out who is going to pay for what. Not many countries are willing to put people in blue helmets. The UN is a bureaucratic organization that measures time in months and years.

Far better for the government to stop this heavy handed oppresion and make a reasonable proposal for a timeframe to a guaranteed independently monitored election. The reds also need to signal that they are willing to accept a reasonable timeframe (Abhisit has to drop this 9 month nonsense). This is not a problem that guns should be used to solve.

Abhisit has made himself and undependable negotiating partner in this process after using soldiers to trample their neighbors and friends, not to protect the country, but to attack a segment of its population.

We were very close to a solution before yesterday and we get get back to that point again if some good intentioned people will work on a solution instead of agravating the problem with force and guns.

The government has truly shown its ugly face

The government just show WHO is the current government - and I am glad for that. Perhaps you're too young for understand that, and to talk about "democracy" (a fake, a chimera which is not exist anywhere in the world).

EACH government has the right to protect the voted regime. EACH government has the right to prevent UNCONSTITUTIONAL tries to change the voted regime. Attacking the state object (Thaicom)/bombing the police in duty/grenade the bank branches/etc are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and MUST be prosecuted (with the power, if necessary).

I have born in the country where government has the balls. It was not nice government sometimes, it is totally undemocratic.......but NOONE EVER grenades the banks for a month-long/storming the regime/blocked the airports. Noone. Ever. Some has tried - and they all are rotten now.

Me myself just wonder - if the government has no ability to protect even themselves from idiocity - how can they protect their citizens from the same?? Son, those in power MUST have balls, sometimes.

IF the military has balls to stop bombings/can keep airports clear/can kick some asses whose blocks major roads - than LET IT BE MILITARY in power. I am really dont care who's face is on TV daily. Really. Much more I need safety and ensure in tomorrow - for my home, wife and kids. Democracy?? What the he_ll is that? Can I feed my kids by your true democracy?? Never see that, sorry - and feel not to.

If we fail to understand history it is sure to repeat.

Now it is the poor what are dis-enfranchised so that doesn't bother you.

I ask what happens and what will your opinon be when you and your family become the next target for disenfranchisment?

Democracy and giving everyone an equal voice to speak their will with their vote is one way to help prevent the disenfranchisement of any segment of the population.

History has shown us that the oppressed masses always win in the end. The people's will cannot be held at bay with gun indefinitely.

Today I just witnessed the worse national disgrace and misuse of the military since I watched the East Germans Army trampled their neighbors with similar shields as we just watched on TV.

Soldiers are supposed to exist to protect the Country and its citizens. Today we watched as politicians used these soldiers to trample their friends and families and children and monks and all to try to hold the poor and dis-enfranchized Thais hostage to their quest for continued power over them.

I won't bother to respond to anyone who would attempt to defend this disgrace.

The whole government is responsible for this disaster now. There can be no excuse for this disgrace brought on the country and these soldiers. If they had any integrity they would submit the resignations NOW.

Moresomekl --- You start that last post with a lie. "In a democracy..." In parliamentary democracies governments can change without a new general election. That is a fact. The rest is you just trying to support that initial lie.

Wrong ...

Anyway you dont even know what parlementary democracy means in the vast world , let alone democracy

it would seem .

Anyway lets conclude this exchange , its boring

Ummm again in Parliamentary democracies governments can change without a new election. Small parties can realign and poof --- a new government. To suggest otherwise is simply a lie.

I don't think I have seen anyone claiming that. What has been said repeatedly is that when a duly elected government is removed normally Parlimentary governments have held national referendums to select the new government.

Do you doubt this? Where is an example? All of the examples provided so far did not involve removement of a duly elected government or involved a coup which in itself is an illegal act.

Please stop repeating this ridiculous idea unless you have a real example. Continually repeating it without facts to back it up will not make it true

Here is a weird one. It seems the reds Buddha image has broken in two, Being taken by some as a bad tiding. Wonder how many people believe in that kind of stuff

Far too many. Particularly country Thais.

It's an omen for sure, and is the kind to give a sense of foreboding in the average up country Somchai.

Why else did Thaksin go to such lengths to do all those rituals and have others do them for him when he wasn't here?

Because most of his chosen demographic is profoundly superstitious.

This is the kind of omen that loses wars.

Whether that will be true this time.....

I don't think I've ever encountered a person with such a a low opinion of the human race. Oh, except yourself. You are always right and feel free to call people you don't even know names and challenge their character. It is OK to disagree with people but please try to show a little restraint and respect. Who knows! You might have eat your words soon.

Stop the name calling. Surely your vocabulary has enough civil words to voice your opinion without attacking people.

Moresomekl.

You've been carrying on this argument about parties being dissolved, and how governments can change without elections for other three weeks now. Lots of people have answered your questions and have sent you links to other examples.

However you still don't get it. I have more joy explaining things to my cat. I for one can no longer be bothered responding to you never listen to anything. I suggest others do the same.

Where are all these examples? All I've seen is the repetition of a Parlimentary vote and coups.

It is rather isane to use the coup example because by definition a coup is illegal.

When an government is removed it is customary to hold a national referendum to here the will of the people in selecting a government to represent them.

Stop with your silly repetitions and show a real example if you know of one. So far everyone has been silent on this.

Don't bother reading the closed new forum this morning. The Nation has flooded it with many pages of anti-opposition propaganda.

It really is a shame when we can have a closed news forum sans anti-opposition proganda. I hope in the future there is a way to ban even The Nation when it strays from reporting the news to try to influence opinions.

It was a very bad mistake for TV to join in an aliance with The Nation. It would really be nice if we could dump them if they insist to put out this kind of trash propaganda. If TV wants to continue this junk, maybe they could add a The Nation editorial forum.

Mods if you are listening you really should consider deleting all the junk there this morning.

As opposed to the junk that you regularly come out with.

Spare us!!

Still not taking your bait Danny boy. Suggest you try somebody else.

Ah! Now you want to Ban The Nation because it has an editorial slant you dislike.

What a wonderful supporter of Democracy you are.

And have removed the last vestiges of your credibility for good.

And before you whine about PTV's closing and say your idea at censorship is not as bad,

remember The Nation has never advocated street rioting and burning Bangkok to the ground.

NO! I don't editorals confused with factual news.

Based on last nights agreement with the military not to turn off PTV again and their actions late last night truning it off again, they just made it much more difficult to reach any kind of compromise. What good would it do if you can't trust the government to keep its word?

If you are able to reach an agreement will last night's actions be repeated?

There has to be a legitimate trust demonstrated. Machine guns aren't exactly a good way to do that.

I don't think so.

They are suffering from a loss of nerve, but have an opportunity to recover.

Abhisit just finished telling off the people who are truly in control of this country (the military). Wouldn't expect him to be in power too much longer, especially considering the military's actions today proved they're more than willing to switch sides at this point in time.

That's how it should be in a free society. The military should be subordinate to civilian powers. It certainly goes against the Red's claim that Abhisit a puppet of the military. Should he retain power, my thinking is that Thailand has made a big step forward.

Agree with the concept.

Why is it that neither side is calling for amendment to the constitution changing the military's role?

One might think that both sides would want the military to report directly to the PM and to codify this direct link of chain of command.

If a PM started issuing unlawful orders, they could have a judicial process to determine whether or not the orders stood.

Right now it appears that the military is free to engage and disengage in politics at the whims and desires of it's current leaders. They also seem to have little to no accountability other to themselves.

I know their oath is sworn to HRM, but he does not engage in politics.

The national military should exist to protect the country from external forces. The police exist to maintain law and order wiithin the country. If there are regional militias they exist to defend the people and maintain law and order in their region.

A PM elected that is removed because of cooking shows

The party in power removed because of bribing (as is not the standard in THailand)

Am sure you got excellent reasons to justify ALL of those , even the coup .

But to an external observer it sounds extremely fishy and biased

And if the coup was not alright then no one has the right to be against the red provided they dont

break the laws

Simple as pie

1. Please reread what I wrote on an employee stealing - if the employee bribes/steals whatever and the directors knew or should have known, they are typically held to be liable; this is an analogy - we are not talking company law here, we are talking Thai law.

If a member of the executive of a party is buying votes, then that's the same as a director directly bribing/stealing; they represent the company and therefore the company faces the consequences. If a member of the non exec, but party nevertheless is caught bribing, then it depends on whether the directors should have known - a bit of a subjective test, but to use an example, the red carded cheaters from PPP Prakit Poldej, Pornchai Srisuthiyothin, Rungroj Thongsri, Prasop Busarakham AFAIK did not have any effect on the PPP as they are not party executives; there were MANY cheats in the 2007 election although less apparently than previous elections....so now....do you understand the difference and in particular, can you reread the piece of the constitution and see how the exec and non exec components differ in terms of repercussions?

2. Samak - cooking show. I suggest you read very carefully the 2007 Constitution, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR

He was being paid for it, he was a part owner effectively of the show, and he should have been doing his job as PM, not posturing on his lousy cooking er politics, er cooking show.

Section 267. The provisions of section 265 shall apply to the Prime Minister and Ministers, except for the holding of position or an act to be done under the provisions of law. The Prime Minister and Ministers shall neither hold any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profits or incomes nor being an employee of any person.

Section 269. The Prime Minister and a Minister shall not be a partner or shareholder of a partnership or a company or retain his being a partner or shareholder of a partnership or a company up to the limit as provided by law. In the case where the Prime Minister or any Minister intends to continue to receive benefits in such cases, the Prime Minister or such Minister shall inform the President of the National Counter Corruption Commission within thirty days as from the date of the appointment and shall transfer his shares in the partnership or company to a juristic person which manages assets for the benefit of other persons as provided by law.

Section 182. The ministership of an individual Minister terminates upon:

(7) having done an act prohibited by section 267, section 268 or section 269;

And as a kicker......

Section 48. No person holding a political position shall be the owner of, or hold shares in, newspaper, radio or television broadcasting or telecommunication business, irrespective of whether he so commits in his name, or through his proxy or nominee, or by other direct or indirect means which enable him to administer such business as if he is the owner of, or hold shares in, such business.

Now just in case you pull some line about, well we should use the 1997 constitution....here it is.

Section 207 A Minister shall not be a Government

official holding a permanent position or receiving a salary

except political official.

Section 208 A Minister shall not hold a position or

perform any act provided in section 110, except the position

required to be held by the operation of law, and shall not hold

any other position in a partnership, company or any

organisation which engages in a business with a view to

sharing profits or incomes or be an employee of any person.

If you really read the 1997 Constitution, it becomes so clear that had THaksin been fairly tried under 1997's version, he would have been banned for sure based on the conclusion that he still had effective control of Shin (well that plus the asset declaration).

So really....that's why they want to bring 1997 back....because they ignored it last time, why not ignore again. But he of course needs Amnesty too.

Yep, the fight really is about democracy innit.

Pretty busy here thus my late answer .

Pa) Please reread also what i said . I never said the article of law do NOT exist . But there is a difference between the law and the application of the law . In the case of THailand the application of the law is partial , kind of "a la carte" one might say . Recently PPP was punished with all the severity of the law , while the dems were allowed off the hook for irregularities . Before that Thaksin , as you highlighted was left off the hook , while obvoiusly he should had been barred from becoming PM . It looks to me as if in Thailand judges are allowed to err . Its not a partisan argument , its valid for all parties

Pb) Yes the law exist about banning a political party , but its a bad law .

For one thing if the party is allowed a rebirth under another acronym the next day with the same people , minus the few offenders , whats the point ? Putting the offenders in jail or heavy fine + banning them from politics for life would have a much greater deterent effect . Not the banning of a party . But of course since lots of politician in Thailand are corrupt they would never allow such penalty . Instead the current law is meant to allow MPs to switch side with impunity and without public control , in other terms to continue parliament to conduct their internal machinations without any transparency over a hord of voters that are purposedly kept ignorant , poor and uneducated . Can you seriously believe that the tens of MPs that switched side or formed their own political parties did not received money OR some immunity for minor corruption issues . Like the kind of , "we know you bought some votes , but if you switch side we will not report you "

For a secund point if one citizen votes someone as a MP he votes for him because of his party affiliation not because of his haircut . Baning a party means that the popular vote is ignored . In fact i see no much difference with a military coup . Try to ban the labour party in England should Gordon Brown be found guilty of corruption and trust me the whole labour voters will be in the street , some other too . Now if you toss in the partiality of the judges in my first point it is even more unnaceptable not that it was acceptable otherwise

To preempt what you might say that the PPP knew the law and accepted its consequences is not relevant . THe law is unfair and amounts to a coup .

Pc) Finally talking about the military coup , it amounts to remove one abuse of power by another abuse of power . Equally unnaceptable

If I combine those 3 points it it clear to me why Thailand is on the brink of civil war . I hope it is clear to you as well

You showed the offenses in the 1997 constitution. Then unfortunately you gave your opinion of wha the remedy should be.

Clearly a first year law student should have enough sense to understand that banning is not a reasonable remedy for being part of a cooking show. The maximum remedy would be to require divesture.

"If anything, the firing of that tear gas is what provoked them to push through and break through the lines into the building." Reported by BBC (neutral enough?).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8610740.stm

Jinglethingy and JDasia and others will say this is red propaganda!

I'd actually say it was just an opinion.

The red shirts had been threatening to push through and break into the compound. They just didn't do it until after the tear gas had been fired.

They were breaking the law just being there. They were confronting the army just being there. Reasonably legitimate reasons for firing tear gas to make them disperse.

Unfortunately, the army didn't back it up and actually stop them from getting through.

peter you speak loudly. I just wonder have you ever seen a real war up close? I don't in you cond drinking a beer or down the street or across town. Up close it's not pretty. You may talk big but would you tuck tail and run when confronted with potential life and death situation.

Tone it down a notch. Anybody can place blame. It takes a real man and leader to look for positive solutions.

So it looks like Thaksin is about to succeed?

Hmmm.... in any event, rumor has it that he is suffering from prostate cancer and is now in Dubai. His recent chemo treatments have really sapped him of energy. The end may be near for this man.

This kind of vicious rumor mongering in intelligent human being is dispicable. If it is a rumor you didn't make up you should at least have the guts topost the source that the person starting the rumor could be confronted.

Everyone, no matter what side or neutral should condem this cowardly act. Would your family appreciate such a rumor about you.

This is going too far. It is time to back off an act civilized.

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

I am sorry, I cannot let you post the false implication the that they did not win. If you are from Thailand you should know that they won a plurality of the votes which wins the election. I wish this kind insidious false insinuation were not part of this dialogue.

They should have the right to be celebrating with their duly elected, by the will of the poeple with their votes, government. Instead they are being called all kinds of names by the likes of nameless people like you.

Shame!

Can someone else confirm for me please regarding the voting system in Thailand?

My understanding of the plurality system is the one with the most votes wins. If that is the case, what is the need for coalitions?

Everything I read is that to form government in Thailand, you need a majority of the MPs. Is that correct?

If so, to "win" an election, you need to have the majority of MPs. The PPP may have got the most votes and may have got the most MPs, but that doesn't make them the winners. They were able to form government with the help of some smaller party MPs.

The winner with the plurality is offered the opportunity to build a coalition to form a majority.

Yes, they have a voice, but they do deserve better infrastructure. A defense against corrupt middlemen in the rice trade, better education, and health care. These aren't the focus of what's going on now, if they were, the red shirts would have more support domestically and internationally.

Even Thaksin was smart enough to see that the poor farmers of the North East wouldn't understand heady ideals like democracy or a socialist movement, I believe he is the one who coined the phrase "democracy you can eat". This is the main importance for the farmers, they want to live their lives, have enough to eat, and party once in a while. Looking at it externally, it is in their best interests to improve their education as well so that they can make up their own minds about what is going on around them, rather than have it hammered into their minds by yelling heads on a stage, day after day. Sadly, many of them don't see the added importance of this. I agree that this has at least woken up the elites to the fact that something has to be done for the rural poor. But I think the current governemnt is more likely to make lasting progress on this than any Thaksin-backed one.

Good post.

I live in Isan (hence my forum name) among the people who in general support the Reds. And no, I didn't forget Florida; I didn't want to shame Americans too much. I am British, brought up to be proud of it, and thoroughly ashamed at the way the politicians in my own country behave. But this is irrelevant; we're talking about Thailand. I don't want to "take votes away" from anybody; I just don't believe democracy is always the best form of Government... and before anyone asks me, no, I can't offer a better.

I guess you are trying to re-write history in the Florida election. There were 3 independent recounts of the ballots of the disputed election and each one showed that Al Gore had in fact by a small margin. One was totally funded but activists within the Democratic Party. As there are people here on TV that will never accept the fact that Thaksin did not create every evil in Thailand, in the US there are partisan people who will never believe the results of the election. They can never accept the fact that the numerous recounts verified the results prove they are wrong. It doesn't matter. The process worked and the result was proven fair.

I agree with you about politicians. We never get what we are promised. For the most part they are motivated by their own desires.

I also agree we haven't found a better system. At least every citizen is supposed to have an equal voice.

When is the next election scheduled, why can't the Reds just wait and vote at the next election? Is the current party in power so bad? The economy here in Thailand was doing very well and now with these protests and bad public relations, tourism is down and the economy is suffering even more. Why can't the Reds understand this is hurting everyone in Thailand and solve this peacefully? Or, is this all about Thaksin loosing face muk muk, that he wants revenge by destroying Thailand's economy? It's good that Thaksin helped the rural people with medial benefits, but should Red followers be brain washed by their leaders to help destroy Thailand's economy in the name of democracy, is "democracy" really the Red leaders motivation? I don't think so...

The next election is almost 2 years away. In a Parlimentary government the governmest is supposed to schedule an election when there is no confidence in the sitting government. The opposition feel they were dis-enfranchised when the were not allowed to have an election (which is the norm for Parlimentary governments) before the Abhisit government was installed.

All of the red herring (must be a shortage by now), economy, retiring General, need to change the constitution, Thaksin should have no bearing on correcting the mistake of not allowing ALL Thais have a voice in choosing the government that represents them.

It appears that cracks are beginning to form in the government, the military, and the police similar to what happened in the Philipines when the Marco's were removed by the military. It appears that the end is approaching and as in the case of the Philipines it appears that the governments escalating crackdown on freedom of speech and movement is leading to the dis-enfranchised people of Thailand finally getting an equal voice in who represents them.

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

I am sorry, I cannot let you post the false implication the that they did not win. If you are from Thailand you should know that they won a plurality of the votes which wins the election. I wish this kind insidious false insinuation were not part of this dialogue.

They should have the right to be celebrating with their duly elected, by the will of the poeple with their votes, government. Instead they are being called all kinds of names by the likes of nameless people like you.

Shame!

It its amazing how far Abhisit seems to be willing to go to try implement the constitutional amendment to insure the re-installment of and incumbent government.

What's next nationalize all the police and demand they go to Bangkok and mobilize all the military and move them to Bangkok.

Bangkok is really going to be a crowded place. Abhisit might have to go home to make room for the police an soldiers in the barracks.

The can never be a true democracy here as long as those people who are protesting now, are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder. They are the ones that are the cause of it all because they do not understand what is going on or are only interested in how much cash they are going to get

The precurser for a "real" democracy requires understanding and responsibillity of the majority of the voters

So BKK please tell me where you got your immaculate wisdom?

I have seen any evidence of knowledge or for that matter any pertinent fact in your post.

Where did you get your information about what the majority stands for? I thought that was what a national referendum was for.

I think you are mistaken. You don't tell people what they understand nor impune their motives. Two previous elections have shown they are the majority and they are showing their responsibility by standing up to a minority who is trying to hold on to their power by escalating their provocative military and police actions to try to silence the Opposition.

Instead of attacking the character of the opposition you should use as much energy to work to get an agreement amongst the groups on a realistic set of plans that they can then negotiate an early national election to allow the peoples will to heard in their votes in an election observed by a group of independent international observers.

Then, after we have a real understanding of who the majority are I hope you will have the common sense to recognize whoever is the majority. Proclaiming a majority from thin air when intuition based previous performance indicates the contrary is just plain nonsense.

Please try with some positive input on resolving the problem.

Khun James, it's a well known fact that a lot of people receive money for voting for particular people.

It is also a well known fact that in the previous election (2007) the Thaksin party did NOT have a majority. And the election before that was declared invalid (before the coup).

It is also a well know fact that the current government represents the majority of Thailand.

And just for some positive input on resolving the problem, why don't the red shirts go home, put some political parties together that represent what they want, and get voted for in the next election.

edit: and instead of just attacking other peoples thoughts about the problems, "please try with some positive input on resolving the problem"

Ok peter, you are right, I should have got a plurality of the votes which is sufficient to win the election. How does that affect my post about BBKJohn post claiming a majority. From the fact that the elctions were won with a plurality means that BKKJohn assumption of a majority against the opposition would seem false based on past history. That was the point being made. Get out of the weeds and you'll see the trees and forests.

Your wife or boyfirend must really really hate trying to converse with you. Or maybe you are both peter an john?

I think you are making one mistake here; If these were people with political grievances and an understanding thereof, I would agree, but the majority are nothing but uneducated, IQ challenged people who are only here because Mr. T is paying them.

Remove all those porn's, you end up with a group of hardcore would be Terrorists and their leaders who are all looking at overthrowing the government for financial gain once Mr. T returns.

Why are they so against the 9 months term - the answer is simple, it would cost Mr. T too much to keep up his supporters

It probably has more to do with the military command reshuffle and military budgets coming up than anything else. Also, wouldn't it be a bit disingenuous for them to be protesting for a true democracy to exist in 9 months? If you want something, chances are you want it now.

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

The can never be a true democracy here as long as those people who are protesting now, are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder. They are the ones that are the cause of it all because they do not understand what is going on or are only interested in how much cash they are going to get

The precurser for a "real" democracy requires understanding and responsibillity of the majority of the voters

So BKK please tell me where you got your immaculate wisdom?

I have seen any evidence of knowledge or for that matter any pertinent fact in your post.

Where did you get your information about what the majority stands for? I thought that was what a national referendum was for.

I think you are mistaken. You don't tell people what they understand nor impune their motives. Two previous elections have shown they are the majority and they are showing their responsibility by standing up to a minority who is trying to hold on to their power by escalating their provocative military and police actions to try to silence the Opposition.

Instead of attacking the character of the opposition you should use as much energy to work to get an agreement amongst the groups on a realistic set of plans that they can then negotiate an early national election to allow the peoples will to heard in their votes in an election observed by a group of independent international observers.

Then, after we have a real understanding of who the majority are I hope you will have the common sense to recognize whoever is the majority. Proclaiming a majority from thin air when intuition based previous performance indicates the contrary is just plain nonsense.

Please try with some positive input on resolving the problem.

"However, he admitted he was not too knowledgeable about Thai politics"

A good summation of the foreigners at the reds rally article.

Guys since when did politics become rocket science or brain surgery? That's the same false assumption that the yellows seem to have.

I know a lot pf PHD's and lawyers that I wouldn't want to represent me.

A good politician needs to have good common sense. You don find that in a textbook. He has a legal staff to read the law books and advise her or him.

Are there any children among the crowds? If so the warning should now be given they are putting their offspring in the way of potential danger.

Yes, there are children present. They are responding to the direct advice of the red leader in Dubai to bring their children to his protests.

Of course, his own children are not present. He wouldn't want anything unsettling to happen to his own elite offspring.

Stop this nonsense! Thaksin has been accused of every crime in the world.

You have no knowledge of what is or is not happening in Dubai. You were probably cheering when earlier false post stated that they had factual information form the Dubai government that Thaksin had been kicked,

Please confine your post to real, substantiated facts. Talk about what you know! Not what you fanticize about!

Did you miss Thaksin's call in where he told the red supporters to bring their children?

Not quite sure what to make of a post like this. We all need to stop trying to parse everyone's words and start trying to contribute someething positive toward making Thailand a better place for all it's people.

i see no advantage in this tit for tat kind of dialogue.

dissolve parliament is the best way to end this protest.

Short term solution - Long term nightmare:

square face returns, corrupts the judiciary, start again controlling medias and filling deeeeeeep pockets

No, thank you.

"democracy is not my goal" (Taksin Shinawatra)

Re your Taksin quote. If that is indeed his let me explain. Allot of people are confused by the term democracy and all it's implications. For example, the United States of America is not a democracy. We are a republic, a representative republic. That. I believe is what Taksin was talking about. He didn't want a European Democracy run by elites but he wanted a true, representative republic, of the people, by the people, for the people but one in which the minority views would be protected.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and ( The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/American...cts/demrep.html

Not quite sure where you are from but US governments model is properly called "a representative democratic republic".

It is a democratic form of government! It is a Democracy!

Are there any children among the crowds? If so the warning should now be given they are putting their offspring in the way of potential danger.

Yes, there are children present. They are responding to the direct advice of the red leader in Dubai to bring their children to his protests.

Of course, his own children are not present. He wouldn't want anything unsettling to happen to his own elite offspring.

Stop this nonsense! Thaksin has been accused of every crime in the world.

You have no knowledge of what is or is not happening in Dubai. You were probably cheering when earlier false post stated that they had factual information form the Dubai government that Thaksin had been kicked,

Please confine your post to real, substantiated facts. Talk about what you know! Not what you fanticize about!

wipe out all the red shirts, all of them.

What did you expect to accomplish with this hateful post?

We should all be trying to calm the situation and hopefully lead to some legitmate and reasonable proposalsto lead to an early election to put a legitimate govenment selected by the popular will of the citizens of Thailand.

Please try to make some civil contributions.

Storming Parliament was a seriously stupid mistake by Red leaders. That's no reason to bring out the stormtroopers on all the Red supporters but the responsible leaders deserve to be arrested and jailed. Let's hope it can be done without bloodshed.

Maybe you would not have retaliated to the weapons provacation from inside the Parliment compound. I suggest that anyone who had ever been shot at would been so calm as you think you should be.

Everyone would also admit it was a mistake to enter the compound and deserveds to be litigated. I suggest that after a fair heaaring in an impartial judicial system that the people who entered should be vindicated because of the continuing racheting up of provacation they were facing.

Let all the speculators speculate but let us hope that justice will prevail.