jayboy

When will Thaksin be indicted for the Tai Bak?

And will that be before or after he is indicted for the 2500 extra judicial killings he ordered?

Never.And frankly it is extraordinarily naive to ask the question (though the Tak Bai case against Thaksin is thin to the point of being non existent).As to the drugs war it was of course a major human rights crime.But ask yourself why he has never been charged - even when his enemies were desperate to pin something on him.Why did they not charge him with the one crime that had the power to destroy him? If you know the answer to that question the mystery is solved.

Because Thaksin is a billionaire and almost everything and everybody in Thailand can be bought? Or, because everything related to the army will never be investigated? Or a mix of both?

Did Thaksin buy Abhisit because the latter did nothing to press drug war charges against the former when the latter was in power? Don't think so. Army may have approved but wasn't really involved in drugs war - a police matter.

When will Thaksin be indicted for the Tai Bak?

And will that be before or after he is indicted for the 2500 extra judicial killings he ordered?

Never.And frankly it is extraordinarily naive to ask the question (though the Tak Bai case against Thaksin is thin to the point of being non existent).As to the drugs war it was of course a major human rights crime.But ask yourself why he has never been charged - even when his enemies were desperate to pin something on him.Why did they not charge him with the one crime that had the power to destroy him? If you know the answer to that question the mystery is solved.

This simply makes my point for me.There is a school of thought, obviously including yourself, that is so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that logic and good sense escapes it.Nobody disputes Abhisit is intelligent and well educated nor that Thaksin is morally deeply suspect.However that isn't the point.The truth is that Thaksin and Abhisit have no significant difference between them in political or economic outlook.Can I just draw your attention to a couple of your most egregious errors.

1.Thaksin is hardly a failed politician.His parties keep on winning elections and look like doing so in the future.If that is failure most politicians would like to emulate him.

2.Abhisit despite his various qualities is hardly an astute politician.The proof is his continued failure to win over the Thai people (and of course he is tainted by murder charges).Hence the current flirtation by the Democrats with non-democratic means of gaining power.

Unbelievable, you only quoted three words from my post and you twisted, misquoted and or misrepresented them to make your red spin sound credible. I wont lower myself to address the personal flame nor the fact your posts are again off topic and to formula.

We will let others be the judge of who is making well considered points and who is just ranting.

Do you have time to answer my post, would be interesting---without the usual waffle--- #112

I have responded but I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say.If you can organise your thoughts more clearly and then articulate them coherently I will do my best to reply.

I don't like terrorists, especially the ones wearing red shirts in the employ of a spineless criminal. As far as I am concerned Abhisit did the city a favor by routing this rabble and the only mistake he made was letting it go on as long as it did.

I wonder how long the current government would allow it to happen if the shoe was on the other foot ?

And can anyone spot the blatant troll haunting these redshirt related topics ?

Actually under this government and governments prior to that of Abhisit, there was amazingly restrained reaction to quasi fascist/ PAD /yellowshirt disturbances and protests (a lot of the same people involved so I lump them together).The murder and bloodshed began with the last government.

Incidentally I don't know if you are referring to me or someone else as the blatant troll.However it's also very evident there's a tendency for those who can't persuade others of their views to describe contrary opinion as "trollish".This is a widely recognised phenonomen now throught the internet and on some forums (not sure about Thai Visa) is regarded as a serious breach of the rules.

Jay boy, you know as well as I do that Money controls Thailand and it's people, Thaksin rules because of monies given out and promises made, He is only clever at manipulation backed by money. The only reason for his motives is power and control he cannot stop he never will he is addicted to this.

To gain the said 4 years is a massive bonus to family and his cronies, once in power the 80% of Thai people get nothing, look at the 2 years in office where have the people prospered or the country ???. can you actually answer without Abhisit being mentioned, I will say again in the last 2 years-prosperity ??

I'm sorry but I don't really follow this at all.If however you are suggesting there is a nexus of money and politics, you are of course correct.But that applies across parties and individuals

The trick up his sleeve is the knowledge that the case will never go to trial but above all the knowledge he will never be convicted.That's why he can be so blase on the subject.

It reminds me of a battle between two great jungle beasts which is in fact just a ritualistic dance because they don't want to wound each other too gravely.

For all the fighting words there is in fact nothing political or ideological which separates Thaksin and Abhisit.Two rich Sino Thai politicians committed to private enterprise and the status quo.Both have strengths and weaknesses.But it's absurd to call the former a dictator or the latter a murderer.

Is the current warming up of the judicial assault on Abhisit/Suthep politically inspired? Of course just as were the charges against Thaksin (we know that from Wikileaks).The serious charges against Thaksin were never made (too much support for drugs war etc from Abhisit's military and feudal friends).

Not even close Jayboy, Thaksin is a poorly educated,convicted criminal who made a fortune through peddling political favours, corrupt politics and ripping off business partners, he is also a failed businessman who spent more time bankrupt than in business. He is also a failed politician who's corrupt dictatorial style and stubborn refusal to give up power caused a military coup and subsequently the division of Thai society. To add to his failures he is also a failed husband, having divorce his wife and currently lives a lavish lifestyle on a fortune of corrupted money in exile, as a fugitive from justice, issuing order on skype to his proxy government whom he rules through the politics of money.

While Abihist is a highly educated professional politician who has never worked in the private sector. He has a reputation as an honest hard working politician and an active astute opposition leader, who lives on inherited money and his MP salary.

This simply makes my point for me.There is a school of thought, obviously including yourself, that is so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that logic and good sense escapes it.Nobody disputes Abhisit is intelligent and well educated nor that Thaksin is morally deeply suspect.However that isn't the point.The truth is that Thaksin and Abhisit have no significant difference between them in political or economic outlook.Can I just draw your attention to a couple of your most egregious errors.

1.Thaksin is hardly a failed politician.His parties keep on winning elections and look like doing so in the future.If that is failure most politicians would like to emulate him.

2.Abhisit despite his various qualities is hardly an astute politician.The proof is his continued failure to win over the Thai people (and of course he is tainted by murder charges).Hence the current flirtation by the Democrats with non-democratic means of gaining power.

Unbelievable, you only quoted three words from my post and you twisted, misquoted and or misrepresented them to make your red spin sound credible. I wont lower myself to address the personal flame nor the fact your posts are again off topic and to formula.

We will let others be the judge of who is making well considered points and who is just ranting.

and the pressure is turned up to help the Thaksin white wash bill to get over the line.

It may help or it may backfire.

Abhisit is remaining very cool under the circumstances.

This is a power play by the Thaksin camp & I wonder what Abhisit knows or has up his sleeve.

He is certainly no fool. It will be interesting if this ever goes to trial.

The trick up his sleeve is the knowledge that the case will never go to trial but above all the knowledge he will never be convicted.That's why he can be so blase on the subject.

It reminds me of a battle between two great jungle beasts which is in fact just a ritualistic dance because they don't want to wound each other too gravely.

For all the fighting words there is in fact nothing political or ideological which separates Thaksin and Abhisit.Two rich Sino Thai politicians committed to private enterprise and the status quo.Both have strengths and weaknesses.But it's absurd to call the former a dictator or the latter a murderer.

Is the current warming up of the judicial assault on Abhisit/Suthep politically inspired? Of course just as were the charges against Thaksin (we know that from Wikileaks).The serious charges against Thaksin were never made (too much support for drugs war etc from Abhisit's military and feudal friends).

Not even close Jayboy, Thaksin is a poorly educated,convicted criminal who made a fortune through peddling political favours, corrupt politics and ripping off business partners, he is also a failed businessman who spent more time bankrupt than in business. He is also a failed politician who's corrupt dictatorial style and stubborn refusal to give up power caused a military coup and subsequently the division of Thai society. To add to his failures he is also a failed husband, having divorce his wife and currently lives a lavish lifestyle on a fortune of corrupted money in exile, as a fugitive from justice, issuing order on skype to his proxy government whom he rules through the politics of money.

While Abihist is a highly educated professional politician who has never worked in the private sector. He has a reputation as an honest hard working politician and an active astute opposition leader, who lives on inherited money and his MP salary.

This simply makes my point for me.There is a school of thought, obviously including yourself, that is so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that logic and good sense escapes it.Nobody disputes Abhisit is intelligent and well educated nor that Thaksin is morally deeply suspect.However that isn't the point.The truth is that Thaksin and Abhisit have no significant difference between them in political or economic outlook.Can I just draw your attention to a couple of your most egregious errors.

1.Thaksin is hardly a failed politician.His parties keep on winning elections and look like doing so in the future.If that is failure most politicians would like to emulate him.

2.Abhisit despite his various qualities is hardly an astute politician.The proof is his continued failure to win over the Thai people (and of course he is tainted by murder charges).Hence the current flirtation by the Democrats with non-democratic means of gaining power.

and the pressure is turned up to help the Thaksin white wash bill to get over the line.

It may help or it may backfire.

Abhisit is remaining very cool under the circumstances.

This is a power play by the Thaksin camp & I wonder what Abhisit knows or has up his sleeve.

He is certainly no fool. It will be interesting if this ever goes to trial.

The trick up his sleeve is the knowledge that the case will never go to trial but above all the knowledge he will never be convicted.That's why he can be so blase on the subject.

It reminds me of a battle between two great jungle beasts which is in fact just a ritualistic dance because they don't want to wound each other too gravely.

For all the fighting words there is in fact nothing political or ideological which separates Thaksin and Abhisit.Two rich Sino Thai politicians committed to private enterprise and the status quo.Both have strengths and weaknesses.But it's absurd to call the former a dictator or the latter a murderer.

Is the current warming up of the judicial assault on Abhisit/Suthep politically inspired? Of course just as were the charges against Thaksin (we know that from Wikileaks).The serious charges against Thaksin were never made (too much support for drugs war etc from Abhisit's military and feudal friends).

A small coward behind skype on his screen is intimidated by opposition and wants to eliminate it. Hope he is eliminated first, as a law of nature and consequence, having done more harm than good unto others & attempting to divide and destroy a nation for personal benefit. At least he is one unhappy little man, worried over safety and a struggle for power- an unhappy state he deserves to live in. Soon he'll be too old and in poor health to operate as an attempting dictator.

Leaving aside the ignorance (Thaksin intimidated by the opposition!!) and slightly crazed rhetoric there does remain one interesting thought - namely what the position will be after Thaksin disappears from the scene.Do the usual suspects really believe the genie can be crammed back into the bottle?

Excellent news, time for the people to turn against this rubber stamp government- by the way, is it true they're going to increase VAT to 10%?

May all those who believe in the rule of law turn out to oppose this blatant whitewash of corruption and violence.

Suthep is not a saint, but then neither was Winston Churchill nor Sonthi Limtongkun.

In times of a crisis like this the brave must stand against injustice, whatever the personal cost.

No politician is a saint, but that's not really the point.The comparison you make of Suthep, Sondhi and Winston Churchill (WSC) is a little bizarre.

Nevertheless WSC said that he would make a pact with the devil himself to defeat Hitler - perhaps this is what you were thinking of.Unfortunately those who make pacts with the devil have a tendency to end up inside the devil's maw.Seriously I still however think that such a campaign would be more effective if led by someone of genuine moral stature.

Anyway I don't think in principle there is anything too untoward about what Suthep proposes though he is very vague about tactics and strategy - and even ultimate objectives.There are laws to deal with the situation if protests get out of control and in a free society demonstrations are allowed.

But the question remains.What happens if the government does fall? What then?

Another question.Can Thai opinion be mobilised by this kind of action to make a Democrat election victory more likely? Or will it have the opposite effect? The sheer stupidity and myopia of the old elites, epitomised by this old crook, make it more likely a Thai style Chavez will emerge.

Wouldn't it be easier and more effective to re-energise the Democrat Party, detoxify its tainted leadership - and then campaign in parliament and the country (in the streets if needs be) to convince the Thai people there's another way.

A good man that not prepared to sit idly by while and watch evil succeed.

Yo are having a laugh I hope.The alternative is too depressing to contemplate.

You mean apart from the fact he was a scared little rabbit? I suppose because it was a convenient spot to take orders from his masters.

I think with the level of lawlessness that had ensued at the time, with the hopelessness of the police, and considering the attacks that had already occurred, any leader would have done what Abhisit did, in seeking a safe house from which to govern. Perhaps someone like the President of America, or another leader of a major first world nation, is able to entrust in their own massive, professionally trained personal security team, to the extent whereby they would still be able to get out and about, but for the Prime Minister of Thailand, can they really, in the sorts of extreme circumstances we saw in 2010, put their lives in the hands of their security team? I rather think not... well not if they have their senses about them.

There is indeed however a time and a place when a leader should put their life on the line, for the good of the nation... but i don't think this was one of them... not when a disgruntled and disgraced former PM was using an armed militia to try and violently topple those who had succeeded him, and when taking out the new leader would have been their and his ultimate goal.

A safe house is a different matter and logistically straight forward to organize, particularly since the "red peril" was so localised.That would have been understandable.But to hide away in the barracks like a frightened schoolgirl doesn't suggest he is a man of courage.To hide away whimpereing in the army barracks doesn't suggest much political astuteness either since the accusation of his critics was that he was ushered into power nuzzling at the army's tit.

 

 At the end of the day, he was holed up in an army barracks

 

 

Have you any idea why he was in an army barracks ?

 

 

You mean apart from the fact he was a scared little rabbit? I suppose because it was a convenient spot to take orders from his masters.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The most unreliable newspaper of Thailand finds obviously only "certain" amnesty laws questionable. They never asked any questions about all the military that walked free even after committing mass murder in the streets of Bangkok over the last 4 decades.

And when it comes down to corruption, you only had to look at the growing faces of Abhisit and his boss Suthep who looked more than a balloon than a head when they were in power. We had roads that had to be carved out in National Forests under mister Abhisit tenure as an unelected PM because his paymasters needed the expensive wood, we had billions in dollars paid as bonuses to military who finally brought the Democrat power, power they never seem to be able to gain through elections and his entire team of ministers encroached on public land. Not to speak of Abhisit's lack of judgement appointing a US blacklisted person running a child brothel as minister of commerce.

No we are better off without the Democrats.

Was Abhisit's tenure as unelected PM before or after his tenure as elected PM?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

One mans elected PM is another mans sham PM brought to power only by the combined powers of an Army Coup, loaded Constitutional Court decisions and finally military coercion.

But if you want to regard Abhisit as a legitimate ex PM thats fine by me, just so I know how low your standards go.

What about a PM that wasn't elected by the people but party listed by a criminal and fugitive from justice to be that criminals proxy. Do you consider her to be a legitimate PM or a sham?

You have a reasonable point.Abhisit wasn't elected by the people but notwithstanding the shady back room deals he was a legitimate PM under the parliamentary system.As to his criminality this has yet to be proven in court so it's a little unfair to accuse him of being a fugitive from justice.It would be more accurate to say he has delayed and frustrated the judicial enqiry into the murder charges against him.As to the proxy issue it would be more accurate to say he is a puppet for the unelected elites and their useful idiots,mainly elements of the Sino Thai middle class.So in short he was both a legitimate PM and a sham.

This would mean that in a place like Thailand, the reaction of people to political issues can be very odd, because issues are dealt with on a superficial level.

I can easily believe someone who supported Thaksin falling out of love with him, and choosing a coup over the dems. Poltics isn't a deeply ingrained idea her and it is more about the personality of the players than any deep ideology or policy.

Well if nothing makes any sense and people act irrationally it's difficult to respond.However hypothetically if a former red supporter is in favour of a coup it touches on my original questions still unanswered - namely how does Thailand progress from there

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Progression after a coup?

The previous coup resulted in the restoration of Democracy, didn't it? The fact that Thais don't appear to understand how their country is run is why it is in the mess it's in.

Apparently, trade in the area I live in, in CM, has deteriorated over the past couple of years. Try to get a Thai to even understand what the PM does, let alone what the government does appears to be a near impossible task.

Government is school, amphurs, people who dress up in fancy dress on certain days. Until Thais mature politically, a coup will merely be an interruption before it all happens again. A coup is just a 'now let's draw breath'.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I agree that this is a difficult subject.My point is that a coup makes the situation worse.For a time there was an argument that a coup could act as a politics "re-set", unblocking an intractable situation so that the country could move on.This argument was deployed by many to justify 2006.Although I didn't agree at the time I could understand the logic.However as events turned out it has become all too apparent that the 2006 was a disaster, not least because it completely failed to achieve its objectives (ie the ejection of Thaksin - the easy part - and more critically the imposition of a government with democratic credentials and yet acceptable to feudal and military interests.The biggest tragedy of all that the coupmakers did grave damage to the institution they professed to hold in highest esteem.In my view there is no alternative to a long hard slog to improve democratic awareness and civil society.

 

In Thailand, anything is possible. I can seriously believe these political beginners supporting a coup over the democrats anytime.

 

 

What does that mean please?

This would mean that in a place like Thailand, the reaction of people to political issues can be very odd, because issues are dealt with on a superficial level.

I can easily believe someone who supported Thaksin falling out of love with him, and choosing a coup over the dems. Poltics isn't a deeply ingrained idea her and it is more about the personality of the players than any deep ideology or policy.

Well if nothing makes any sense and people act irrationally it's difficult to respond.However hypothetically if a former red supporter is in favour of a coup it touches on my original questions still unanswered - namely how does Thailand progress from there

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

In Thailand, anything is possible. I can seriously believe these political beginners supporting a coup over the democrats anytime.

What does that mean please?

Wife who has been moderately red all her life now says she wants a coup, and the sooner the better !   She, like many others who have been blinded by these Dictators for too long, is becoming a lot more savvy about what they are trying to do to the people of this country.

 

My own thoughts are that if this underlying dissent gathers pace in the coming decade this country is in line for a very big public uprising that is likely to reshape the future completely.  The wheel always turns full circle.

 

So what exactly does your "moderately red" wife object to? It would be interesting to know given her original "red" sentiment though she now wants a military coup.Does she want a permanent military junta or a government appointed by the military or a caretaker government in advance of a democratically elected one? If there was a general election how does she think the Thai people would vote (if allowed a fair election) after a coup?Does she think a military coup would increase or decrease the chance of a healthy democracy? Why was she moderately red in the first place? Does she believe the original "red platform" has been subverted? What precise steps under the current government does she object to?

 

Frankly it all seems a bit implausible.Did you make it up?

It's not implausible to want a better deal for the poor and the rural, and to have been very disappointed with ptp and yinglucks attempts so far.

Agreed but those who hold that view tend to be radical red shirts. What's implausible is the suggestion by someone's formerly redshirt "wife" that the position would be remedied by a military coup.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Wife who has been moderately red all her life now says she wants a coup, and the sooner the better ! She, like many others who have been blinded by these Dictators for too long, is becoming a lot more savvy about what they are trying to do to the people of this country.

My own thoughts are that if this underlying dissent gathers pace in the coming decade this country is in line for a very big public uprising that is likely to reshape the future completely. The wheel always turns full circle.

So what exactly does your "moderately red" wife object to? It would be interesting to know given her original "red" sentiment though she now wants a military coup.Does she want a permanent military junta or a government appointed by the military or a caretaker government in advance of a democratically elected one? If there was a general election how does she think the Thai people would vote (if allowed a fair election) after a coup?Does she think a military coup would increase or decrease the chance of a healthy democracy? Why was she moderately red in the first place? Does she believe the original "red platform" has been subverted? What precise steps under the current government does she object to?

Frankly it all seems a bit implausible.Did you make it up?

Absurd naivete compounded by the patronizing tone into sheer folly. The red movement characterized itself as a stand against double standards, an end to rural poverty, fairer justice system, and freedom of speech. All of these things have become far worse under this Thaksin govt. A more pertinent question would be why anybody that believed in the red cause originally still supports the Shinawatras after seeing their actions over the past 2 years. The only credible answer is that they have swallowed Thaksin's propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Okay let's think this through.Obviously there are former red supporters disillusioned by subsequent events.I think it's a small minority and the great majority of supporters are still to be counted on.But it doesn't really affect my question which I will recapitulate.How does a disillusioned former red supporter think the situation would be improved through a military coup.Certainly this government could be removed and perhaps PTP banned by a compliant justice sysyem.But what then? That was my question (as set out in more detail in my original post) and I have yet to receive a response.

Don't be absurd.My post was obviously not a flame.If you need further clarification on what is and what is not a flame read the forum rules or take it up with the mods.

In any event I strongly suspect the political position of the "wife" (coup lover who was formerly a "moderate red") was mostly made up to give the impression this is a widely held view.But I try to have an open mind and I await a coherent reply to the questions I posed.

Whats the topic of the OP? I dont thinks its trainmans wife.

In using Thai Visa I agree:

1) To respect fellow members.

4) Not to flame fellow members.Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger.

We will let the other members decide.

Clearly my post was not a flame (it wasn't even about a member's wife merely scepticism of a highly implausible proposition) but I am quite happy for the mods to decide.The subsequent personal attacks on me could possibly be construed as flames, but frankly I simply can't be bothered to water energy on them.

Meanwhile I await answers to the questions I posed.

Wife who has been moderately red all her life now says she wants a coup, and the sooner the better ! She, like many others who have been blinded by these Dictators for too long, is becoming a lot more savvy about what they are trying to do to the people of this country.

My own thoughts are that if this underlying dissent gathers pace in the coming decade this country is in line for a very big public uprising that is likely to reshape the future completely. The wheel always turns full circle.

So what exactly does your "moderately red" wife object to? It would be interesting to know given her original "red" sentiment though she now wants a military coup.Does she want a permanent military junta or a government appointed by the military or a caretaker government in advance of a democratically elected one? If there was a general election how does she think the Thai people would vote (if allowed a fair election) after a coup?Does she think a military coup would increase or decrease the chance of a healthy democracy? Why was she moderately red in the first place? Does she believe the original "red platform" has been subverted? What precise steps under the current government does she object to?

Frankly it all seems a bit implausible.Did you make it up?

This has to be a new low for you Jayboy, flaming a posters wife, unbelievable

Don't be absurd.My post was obviously not a flame.If you need further clarification on what is and what is not a flame read the forum rules or take it up with the mods.

In any event I strongly suspect the political position of the "wife" (coup lover who was formerly a "moderate red") was mostly made up to give the impression this is a widely held view.But I try to have an open mind and I await a coherent reply to the questions I posed.

Wife who has been moderately red all her life now says she wants a coup, and the sooner the better ! She, like many others who have been blinded by these Dictators for too long, is becoming a lot more savvy about what they are trying to do to the people of this country.

My own thoughts are that if this underlying dissent gathers pace in the coming decade this country is in line for a very big public uprising that is likely to reshape the future completely. The wheel always turns full circle.

So what exactly does your "moderately red" wife object to? It would be interesting to know given her original "red" sentiment though she now wants a military coup.Does she want a permanent military junta or a government appointed by the military or a caretaker government in advance of a democratically elected one? If there was a general election how does she think the Thai people would vote (if allowed a fair election) after a coup?Does she think a military coup would increase or decrease the chance of a healthy democracy? Why was she moderately red in the first place? Does she believe the original "red platform" has been subverted? What precise steps under the current government does she object to?

Frankly it all seems a bit implausible.Did you make it up?

Your definition leaves out the fact that the Thai passport is more useful:

1) if you're living in Thailand (about 1,000 times more useful);

2) if you're traveling around ASEAN, as well as some other countries such as Russia (no visa required) and Iran (visa on arrival)

If I am living in Thailand permanently, traveling maybe once a year to Europe or the US, and every month within ASEAN -- the Thai passport is better.

In any case, the hassle of having to get a visa for occasional Western countries is insignificant when compared to the daily hassles of living as a foreigner in Thailand: visas, work permits, 90-day reporting, difficult access to credit, etc., etc.

1.Do you need a Thai passport to travel in Thailand? What you mean I suppose is that Thai citizenship is advantageous for a foreigner (particularly the ability to buy land).Don't disagree but we were talking about passports (ie ease of international travel), not citizenship.

2.Visa on arrival - where required - is easy for US citizens within Asean.

3.I don't find any hassle at all in living in Thailand as a foreigner with PR.Actually I didn't find it a hassle in the 30 years or so before before I had PR (thanks to my profession and office back up).

So for the vast majority as regards ease of foreign travel a US passport wins hands down over a Thai passport.I appreciate with your further explanation this may not apply to you.One aspect you don't mention is consular support.If I had a problem in say France, I know which Embassy I would have more faith in.

Also I accept that the visa situation is improving for Thais.Country getting richer, much less third world and Thai travellers generally well behaved compared with others.Japan now offering visa free 15 day stays to Thais.

OK, I'll revise my statement.

For people like me and for my partner, ie people well into middle age, with established businesses, properties, significant cash, and a record of decades of lawful travel all over the world...there is absolutely no problem getting a visitor's visa on a Thai passport to any country in the world.

So, for ME, I do not expect that traveling on a Thai passport would present any difficulties whatsoever.

This is my personal experience. As stated, my partner has never been refused a visa or even questioned, and has been to 60 countries.

Your mileage may vary.

There's nothing wrong with a Thai passport but it necessitates acquiring visas for many countries that do not require visas from citizens of the US.Therefore in terms of simple convenience a US passport is by definition more useful.Your personal circumstances are neither here nor there.