jope

Hmmm the perfect democracy in the West, where politicians lie to get their countries to go to war. I am not sure that the majority of people suport or trust their leaders in the West at all. Both the EU and America are not in good positions to chastise Thailand, and please separate the EU when you discuss UK policy on Thailand as it differs.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Whenever the EU deliver a common position it includes the UK. That might change in the future, but until then the UK is part of the EU. The Common Foreign and Security Policy knows common positions, common strategies and joint actions (as we will see in the Ukraine in the near future). Within that policy the UK is represented, can bring in their standpoint and will then support the outcome. National foreign policies might differ, but within the EU one cannot make any distinctions between EU member states.

The USA likes to harp on about democracy but does not like to stick to it.

Who voted that the USA should be the global police force?

The USA has used its military in many countries against UN Votes e.g. Iraq

And does as it pleases regardless of what the international community thinks.

Yet is happy to condemn Thailand's military when it stepped in to stop a potential civil uprising, that was most likely funded by an ousted and exiled criminal.

The USA and Australia are ignorant of how things are in Thailand, vote buying ,vote rigging, political corruption, proxy PM's put in place by deposed and exiled politicians, civil unrest etc... Is not Democracy and is not a democratic process.

The Junta is trying to restore democracy in Thailand and Western countries should pull their heads in and be proactive to this process not attacking and condemning this.

And if they were genuine about democracy they should reach out to The Junta and offer assistance to help in restoring democracy.

I do not know who in the US would vote for the world police role. But I do know that whenever something goes wrong in the world and the United Nations get involved they always turn to the US for help first (paying 60 % of the UN budget in the first place). And guess what, the US rarely turn them down. When Haiti was hit by an earthquake the US deployed a carrier, 10.000 soldiers and two former presidents more or less over night and received a rather supportive reaction from the US people, i would say. All in all, I would not be surprised if the majority of the people in the US would come to the conclusion that they do not have to vote for the police role. The US simply are because the world's problem come to them whether they like it or not.

In regard of UN resolutions: correct. NATO started the air strikes against Yugoslavia without a UN mandate. The Iraq war had no UN mandate either. Milosevic extradited a whole nation out of their own country. Saddam used gas (!!!) for mass murdering his own people. Well, "ends" and "means", do I have to say more? (I don't care about hidden agendas as long as the slaughterer is gone. Sounds familiar?)

I truly liked your last sentence! It would be so great to see the Military cringe and pretend they liked it. Of course, the answer would be clear: "Do not interfere in inner matters of Thailand. We know what we are doing". And that I will believe without any doubts.

Totally different approach in Germany (I guess in some other EU countries, as well): the German parliament decide when and where to deploy military troops. The military fighting "internal enemies" is not only unconstitutional but also unthinkable! It is the responsibility of the police and only of the police. The majority of the people in Germany support this principal. I think it should be considered in Thailand, as well (if there will ever be an elected government again).

The role of the military in Germany, it's structure, deployment and controls, were defined after WW2; and not by Germany. The constraints and restrictions were in place for 2 very good historical reasons and to prevent a 3rd.

Germany no longer sees a military solution to its economic, social or political problems and and it is only fairly recently German troops have been allowed to be deployed in oversees combat roles. The German military does not occupy the dominant position in society it would did, thanks to the changes after WW2.

Germany enjoys a very professional and capable police force in which there is not widespread institutionalized corruption. Most German people, IME, respect and abide by the law. The judicial system, whilst not perfect, is on a par with peer countries in and out of the EU.

Comparing Germany and Thailand is like comparing apples and mangosteens.

Thanks for repeating/elaborating what I said in two previous posts (and thanks for the nice words about the German police)

Thailand is among those states that use the military for more than defending the country against enemies from the outside (quite a mellow way of describing their power within Thailand). Germany and others do not. That is the comparison I made.

My understanding of your post is that flaws in a system justify a military role that can take over power at any time without parliamentary or judicial control. That reenforces my opinion that Thailand should consider taming the military by constitutionally limiting their role to fighting against outer enemies. I very much doubt that the military will accept that...ever.

Totally different approach in Germany (I guess in some other EU countries, as well): the German parliament decide when and where to deploy military troops. The military fighting "internal enemies" is not only unconstitutional but also unthinkable! It is the responsibility of the police and only of the police. The majority of the people in Germany support this principal. I think it should be considered in Thailand, as well (if there will ever be an elected government again).

Same in the USA. The idea that the military could turn on its own people is revolting. Speaking of revolting, even members of the military wouldn't turn on their own people.

There are a very few limited and temporary times when martial law can be implemented but it's a temporary emergency when local law enforcement is overwhelmed such as hurricane Katrina. Even then the military personnel are subject to local law enforcement and to Congress.

But the idea that the military could take over the government is preposterous. I have more than 100 million citizens with more than 300 million guns who say it ain't gonna happen. Many of those 300 million guns are owned privately by members of the military and police officers and their families. They would turn on the military.

In order to get those guns the craziest and most suicidal members of the military with the lowest IQ's would have to go door to door 555.

I guess, these similarities (except for the privately owned guns) are no coincidence considering that the US helped a bit in creating our constitution.

I remember that some time ago there was a very brief public discussion in a few newspapers (for a day or so) raising the "what if.." question. It was so absurd that literally everybody laughed about it. I think our soldiers were the ones that were surprised the most by this ridiculous and, I agree, preposterous thought.

Lucky those who live in a country with a self-conscious civil society and a democratic constitution. Obviously, that is not a given everywhere in the world.

Just watched "the leftovers" poor choice of name! not to bad ,dont know where its going ,but will give it a go .

Just watched the first episode. Slow pace, but I am really curious how all these characters develop. Could be a good show. And: will we ever learn what happened on that specific day (although the actual reason seems to be of no relevance for the development of the show)? I will definitely continue watching.

I would hardly say Australia and the USA governments are in a position to comment they are both woeful administrations and really have no idea what is going on in Thailand.

I think they know what is happening in Thailand but have backed them selves into a corner with their loud proclamations of Democracy being the only way.

You will notice that they are very quietly dropping the travelers alerts. Being an American I may have been influenced by the western idea of China. As it turns out I am having to take a good look at that belief. It may and probably was true at one point but times change and Chinas is not the China of Mao.

I can't say as I approve of their expansionist policies but economically they may be a better fit for Thailand. I would not be surprised to see in the future the West doing a lot of back peddling on their beliefs.

The Thai government said they understood not being invited to the U S 4th of July celebration. But I am sure they will remember it in the future dealings with the U S.

China has a strict non-interference policy. As long as a government does not recognize Taiwan as a state independent from China they can more or less do whatever they want. Human rights violations, atrocities of any kind, China will remain a reliable business partner. I do not know whether this is a likable position.

Totally different approach in Germany (I guess in some other EU countries, as well): the German parliament decide when and where to deploy military troops. The military fighting "internal enemies" is not only unconstitutional but also unthinkable! It is the responsibility of the police and only of the police. The majority of the people in Germany support this principal. I think it should be considered in Thailand, as well (if there will ever be an elected government again).

This person is a serious threat to the stability of Thai society. If left free to move around he will cause trouble again with his extremest viewpoints and selfish actions that cause friction between socioeconomic classes, endanger international relations, and huge damage to the economy. Let's hope the Thai charges have him thrown right back in jail for a good amount of time.

There is no evidence for your statement.

Well done ! He just described any one of the many past and present redshirt leaders. Perfectly !

Thanks mate, whenever I want to paint a picture of redshirt terrorists I will just copy and paste your post.

So, whoever says it first will win, I guess.

Without doing an in depth study of the Thai political system , the party list system

sure seems like an epic failure .Does it have any parallel in the real world ?? Where

the winning party just starts appointing cronies to positions of power ? What

the bleep is up with that? And as another poster noted, if that system allows

morons like Chalerm to hold positions of power, it definitely needs to be changed...

Well, in Germany it works exactly like that.

BTW, it's always "the other side" that has all these unelectable morons in their parliamentary group.

There are "certain" people in Thailand with a reputation for setting fire to shopping centers, but they don't usually practice in their own back yard.

And there it is!

Still missing, though: "But thanks to General P. the fire department suddenly took their job seriously so the fire could not spread."

Watch the next games, and if you know anything about football, you will realise the true position of the US in the world football hierarchy.

Enthusiastic amateurs.

Do you want me to apologize? I would do that. Seriously!

Adios America.

Better stick to the World Series.

In fact...the USA has put on a great showing for the growing amount of fans.

Thanks to the team for bringing up the level of excitement.

Not bad.....looks like the USA will be getting more and more into the game.

Did much better than England.

Let's not get over the top here. It is still England we are talking about. And they were World Champion in 1968 (sort of, we Germans know that their last two goals did not count!)

But totally agree otherwise. Looking forward to seeing the US-team at the next championship.

Belgium 2 : 1 USA (extra time)

USA 1-0

I so would have liked it, if you had been right.

Anyway, the US delivered a great fight. Congrats to Belgium.

I think the Belgian 2:1 is not undeserved.

That free kick was sensational! It really deserved a goal for the US, tough luck.

Adios America.

Better stick to the World Series.

Nooooo! Wrong!!!

Continue fighting and turn the game! (Green for the US, 107th min.)

Great to see that the US-team did not collapse after that first goal and continued fighting. But with this second goal ... (Lukaku for Belgium, 105th minute)

I just saw Klinsmann singing the US anthem. Great, well done Kliensi!

I say leave the EU. Those who say that we will lose trading access to 500 million people of the EU are misguided. Britain will still be able to access these markets and forge trade deals. It will be harder, yes. and it will take greater expertise, yes, but it is doable.

It takes hard bl##dy work, that's all. The 50% of our export trade to EU countries will not be lost by any means if we decide to leave the club. Sure there may be a temporary dip in trade, but what about putting greater effort into all the other markets worldwide. Part of the problem is that many of our (UK) career politicians have never done a days' work in the real world so don't appear to appreciate what actually makes the world go round. Too many of them have their snouts in the European gravy trough.

There are endless opportunities out there for good quality products from the UK, competitively priced. We don't need to be a member of a trade club to access that business. I am ready to advise as a 30 year hard nosed Exporter but I won't hold my breath.

Indeed Britain originally joined The Common Market.

The politicians had their own agenda and developed it into the EU that exists today, none of which was ever voted for by the people of Britain.

Seems to me it mainly benefits the politicians and those obliged to them for a multitude of jobs.

That is something one can hear again and again. But actually, it was clear right from the beginning of the EU (EEC at the time): the common market is just another step to reach the goal, which is a united Europe.

When Britain joined they did not vote for the common market alone, they voted for the goal as well.

Quote from the Schuman Declaration 09.05.1950:

Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.

Actually the British people did NOT vote for the EU and was not explained to about the common market becoming a centralised power centre governing all European nations.

In short the British public were railroaded and uninformed as to the depth of that vote. Some tried to tell people of the enormity of it but were rubbished by all those on the gravy train at that time.

I did not follow the news in Britain in 1975. But I remember that there were some doubts in Europe wether the British would confirm their EEC membership. I also remember that the rest of Europe perceived the solid "yes" of that referendum as a yes to Europe and not just yes to a free trade zone. But I was not in Britain at that time, so actually, the majority of the British people may very well have meant something completely different than what other people outside of Britain perceived. Well, the next British referendum will show, I guess.

Close to a heart attack. Algeria with a great fight! Holland-Germany coming closer but how are we gonna win against our French brothers?????

Fun game so far. Algeria is really impressing me with some excellent offensive playing. They just lack the finishing touch. Let's see if Germany can follow Dutch's and France's example of keeping their cool and coming out victorious in the end. As a Dutch person I am obviously hoping for a Germany-Netherlands final!

Yes, please!

29 minutes and I am deeply depressed. I hope Germany makes it to a penalty shoot-out, otherwise...

I say leave the EU. Those who say that we will lose trading access to 500 million people of the EU are misguided. Britain will still be able to access these markets and forge trade deals. It will be harder, yes. and it will take greater expertise, yes, but it is doable.

It takes hard bl##dy work, that's all. The 50% of our export trade to EU countries will not be lost by any means if we decide to leave the club. Sure there may be a temporary dip in trade, but what about putting greater effort into all the other markets worldwide. Part of the problem is that many of our (UK) career politicians have never done a days' work in the real world so don't appear to appreciate what actually makes the world go round. Too many of them have their snouts in the European gravy trough.

There are endless opportunities out there for good quality products from the UK, competitively priced. We don't need to be a member of a trade club to access that business. I am ready to advise as a 30 year hard nosed Exporter but I won't hold my breath.

Indeed Britain originally joined The Common Market.

The politicians had their own agenda and developed it into the EU that exists today, none of which was ever voted for by the people of Britain.

Seems to me it mainly benefits the politicians and those obliged to them for a multitude of jobs.

That is something one can hear again and again. But actually, it was clear right from the beginning of the EU (EEC at the time): the common market is just another step to reach the goal, which is a united Europe.

When Britain joined they did not vote for the common market alone, they voted for the goal as well.

Quote from the Schuman Declaration 09.05.1950:

Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.

do you think he need to hold dinner to raise funds? seriously?

He collected millions from the people during his 6 months of chaos surely he didn't spend it all on restaurants, massages and the presidential suites at top hotels.

"He collected millions from the people during his 6 months of chaos surely he didn't spend it all on restaurants"

I doubt he collected enough money to keep the marches and expenses going let alone any surplus!

Perhaps you can give us the figures?

I would rather ask: can anybody give any figures?

Wall Street Journal quoted a spokesperson of Suthep Thaugsuban that more than 1,5 Million US Dollars had been collected until the beginning of January.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579310222926026720

Furthermore there was a Bangkok Post article claiming that some more or less wealthy persons and companies donated rather significantly (mainly denied by most of the names involved)

Currently, I think that founding a political movement with a ridiculous name could be a rather good idea in regard of tax evasion and money laundering.